Solution Manual For Art of Thinking, The: A Guide to critical and Creative Thought, 11th Edition
Boost your textbook learning with Solution Manual For Art of Thinking, The: A Guide to critical and Creative Thought, 11th Edition, providing the answers and solutions you need to succeed.
Benjamin Griffin
Contributor
4.0
30
4 months ago
Preview (13 of 40)
Sign in to access the full document!
’ S MANUAL
to accompany
THE ART OF THINKING
A Guide to Critical and Creative Thought
Eleventh Edition
Vincent Ryan Ruggiero
SUNY Delhi College (Emeritus)
to accompany
THE ART OF THINKING
A Guide to Critical and Creative Thought
Eleventh Edition
Vincent Ryan Ruggiero
SUNY Delhi College (Emeritus)
iii
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
I. Be Aware
1 Developing Your Thinking: An Overview 4
2 Establish a Foundation 8
3 Broaden Your Perspective 11
4 Be a Critical Reader, Listener, and Viewer 15
II. Be Creative
5 The Creative Process 17
6 Search for Challenges 18
7 Express the Problem or Issue 20
8 Investigate the Problem or Issue 24
9 Produce Ideas 26
III. Be Critical
10 The Role of Criticism 27
11 Refine Your Solution to the Problem 28
12 Evaluate Your Argument on the Issue 29
13 Refine Your Resolution of the Issue 35
IV. Communicate Your Ideas
14 Persuading Others 36
15 Writing and Speaking Effectively 37
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
I. Be Aware
1 Developing Your Thinking: An Overview 4
2 Establish a Foundation 8
3 Broaden Your Perspective 11
4 Be a Critical Reader, Listener, and Viewer 15
II. Be Creative
5 The Creative Process 17
6 Search for Challenges 18
7 Express the Problem or Issue 20
8 Investigate the Problem or Issue 24
9 Produce Ideas 26
III. Be Critical
10 The Role of Criticism 27
11 Refine Your Solution to the Problem 28
12 Evaluate Your Argument on the Issue 29
13 Refine Your Resolution of the Issue 35
IV. Communicate Your Ideas
14 Persuading Others 36
15 Writing and Speaking Effectively 37
iii
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
I. Be Aware
1 Developing Your Thinking: An Overview 4
2 Establish a Foundation 8
3 Broaden Your Perspective 11
4 Be a Critical Reader, Listener, and Viewer 15
II. Be Creative
5 The Creative Process 17
6 Search for Challenges 18
7 Express the Problem or Issue 20
8 Investigate the Problem or Issue 24
9 Produce Ideas 26
III. Be Critical
10 The Role of Criticism 27
11 Refine Your Solution to the Problem 28
12 Evaluate Your Argument on the Issue 29
13 Refine Your Resolution of the Issue 35
IV. Communicate Your Ideas
14 Persuading Others 36
15 Writing and Speaking Effectively 37
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
I. Be Aware
1 Developing Your Thinking: An Overview 4
2 Establish a Foundation 8
3 Broaden Your Perspective 11
4 Be a Critical Reader, Listener, and Viewer 15
II. Be Creative
5 The Creative Process 17
6 Search for Challenges 18
7 Express the Problem or Issue 20
8 Investigate the Problem or Issue 24
9 Produce Ideas 26
III. Be Critical
10 The Role of Criticism 27
11 Refine Your Solution to the Problem 28
12 Evaluate Your Argument on the Issue 29
13 Refine Your Resolution of the Issue 35
IV. Communicate Your Ideas
14 Persuading Others 36
15 Writing and Speaking Effectively 37
1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of The Art of Thinking is to introduce students to the thinking process and have them develop
confidence and skill in using it to solve problems and resolve issues. That purpose dictates the form of this teacher’s
manual. Few “official answers” are included here. Instead, suggestions for leading class discussion of the exercises
and applications are given, along with tips about the kinds of confusion students may experience and strategies for
overcoming that confusion.
Although many instructors using The Art of Thinking have had considerable experience teaching creative and critical
thinking, others have had little or no experience. The guidelines that follow will assist the latter group in making
appropriate adjustments in teaching and testing approaches.
GET STUDENTS MORE INVOLVED IN CLASS
Most instructors talk a great deal more than they realize. Because they were taught by the lecture method, they teach
by that method. Even when not making a formal presentation, they dominate discussions by clarifying ideas, sharing
anecdotes, providing information, and explaining complex matters. Meanwhile, students sit passively, much in the
same manner that they sit in front of the television set, and with a similar degree of inattention.
In order to teach thinking skills well, you must change the student’s role from passive to active. The best way to do
this is for you to talk less. Ask students to do little tasks you usually do, such as reading the applications aloud
before discussing them and summarizing the previous day’s discussion. If possible, when a student asks you a
question, redirect it to another student and then ask a third student to comment on the accuracy of the answer. When
going over the exercises and applications in class, have a student present his or her response and then have another
evaluate that response. If the evaluation is superficial, resist the urge to add your own evaluation and instead ask a
provocative question. When disputes arise and everyone appeals to you to resolve them, ask someone who hasn’t yet
spoken on the matter to suggest how he or she would resolve the issue. Occasionally, let an unresolved problem or
issue lie, offering to give class time a day or two later to anyone who works out a solution.
If this approach seems uncomfortable at first, remind yourself that a good intellectual coach, like a good athletic
coach, does not push players aside and enter the competition—he or she gets the players to raise their level of play
by encouraging, guiding, and occasionally cajoling them.
WHEN YOU ASK QUESTIONS, EXTEND YOUR “WAIT TIME”
Studies show that the average instructor waits only about one second for students to answer questions. If an answer
is not forthcoming by then, the instructor either asks someone else, rephrases the question, or answers himself or
herself. One second is not very much time even for a simple matter of fact; for a matter involving interpretation or
judgment, it is woefully inadequate. The same studies reveal that when an instructor extends the wait time to three
seconds and beyond, poor students as well as good students tend to produce more ideas and better ideas and engage
in lengthier and livelier discussions. As a reminder to extend your wait time, try glancing at the second hand of the
clock when you ask questions and timing yourself.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of The Art of Thinking is to introduce students to the thinking process and have them develop
confidence and skill in using it to solve problems and resolve issues. That purpose dictates the form of this teacher’s
manual. Few “official answers” are included here. Instead, suggestions for leading class discussion of the exercises
and applications are given, along with tips about the kinds of confusion students may experience and strategies for
overcoming that confusion.
Although many instructors using The Art of Thinking have had considerable experience teaching creative and critical
thinking, others have had little or no experience. The guidelines that follow will assist the latter group in making
appropriate adjustments in teaching and testing approaches.
GET STUDENTS MORE INVOLVED IN CLASS
Most instructors talk a great deal more than they realize. Because they were taught by the lecture method, they teach
by that method. Even when not making a formal presentation, they dominate discussions by clarifying ideas, sharing
anecdotes, providing information, and explaining complex matters. Meanwhile, students sit passively, much in the
same manner that they sit in front of the television set, and with a similar degree of inattention.
In order to teach thinking skills well, you must change the student’s role from passive to active. The best way to do
this is for you to talk less. Ask students to do little tasks you usually do, such as reading the applications aloud
before discussing them and summarizing the previous day’s discussion. If possible, when a student asks you a
question, redirect it to another student and then ask a third student to comment on the accuracy of the answer. When
going over the exercises and applications in class, have a student present his or her response and then have another
evaluate that response. If the evaluation is superficial, resist the urge to add your own evaluation and instead ask a
provocative question. When disputes arise and everyone appeals to you to resolve them, ask someone who hasn’t yet
spoken on the matter to suggest how he or she would resolve the issue. Occasionally, let an unresolved problem or
issue lie, offering to give class time a day or two later to anyone who works out a solution.
If this approach seems uncomfortable at first, remind yourself that a good intellectual coach, like a good athletic
coach, does not push players aside and enter the competition—he or she gets the players to raise their level of play
by encouraging, guiding, and occasionally cajoling them.
WHEN YOU ASK QUESTIONS, EXTEND YOUR “WAIT TIME”
Studies show that the average instructor waits only about one second for students to answer questions. If an answer
is not forthcoming by then, the instructor either asks someone else, rephrases the question, or answers himself or
herself. One second is not very much time even for a simple matter of fact; for a matter involving interpretation or
judgment, it is woefully inadequate. The same studies reveal that when an instructor extends the wait time to three
seconds and beyond, poor students as well as good students tend to produce more ideas and better ideas and engage
in lengthier and livelier discussions. As a reminder to extend your wait time, try glancing at the second hand of the
clock when you ask questions and timing yourself.
2
DELAY YOUR REACTIONS TO STUDENT IDEAS
Many instructors give immediate affirmative or negative signals when a student answers a question or presents an
idea. When such signals are given, the entire class naturally regards the matter as closed and stops thinking. And if
the quickest thinkers in the class answer most of the questions and volunteer most of the ideas, that means the other
students are seldom provided an opportunity to think a question through or ponder a new idea before having their
thought process interrupted. Little wonder slower thinkers become discouraged.
To increase the time your students spend thinking about questions and ideas, mask your reactions while students are
answering questions or volunteering comments and then look around the room mirroring the same quizzical gaze
students are showing you. After counting slowly to three (or higher), ask the person who spoke to elaborate or
someone else to comment on the statement. And be sure to use this approach not only when students make incorrect
assertions but also when they are correct. Both kinds are worth having your class ponder.
This guideline does not mean students should be allowed to remain mired in confusion. It means only that you
should give them sufficient time to extricate themselves and thus experience the satisfaction and confidence that
accompany success in doing so.
CREATE A CLASSROOM ATMOSPHERE CONDUCIVE TO THINKING
The classroom atmosphere most conducive to thinking is one in which process is valued above product. In this way,
mistakes are tolerated and students are encouraged to face them honestly and learn from them, an atmosphere in
which students can be adventurous in their thinking because imagination and originality are prized and in which
criticism can be given and received without embarrassment or hurt feelings. Many students have never experienced
such a classroom atmosphere and so may at first feel uncomfortable in it (or suspicious of you for providing it), but
in time they will appreciate and thrive in it.
MAKE YOUR EXAMINATIONS EXERCISES IN THINKING
Because most of us were educated in a system that emphasized possessing knowledge, but not using it in any
cognitive enterprise, we tend to favor objective testing. Unfortunately, the objective test is an inadequate measure of
thinking proficiency: it denies students an opportunity to demonstrate their creativity, penalizes students who
perceive subtleties and note relationships among ideas, denies students practice in disciplined expression, and
prevents instructors from observing the process by which students reach their conclusions.
The essay test, though free from most of the defects of the objective test, presents other drawbacks. It allows
students to hide paucity or complete absence of thought by multiplying words, and it takes significantly more time to
grade than does an objective test (a fact of no small importance to instructors with large classes).
One way to avoid the limitations of both the objective and the essay test is to use the combination test. This test
consists of these kinds of questions:
• The Modified True/False Question. Rather than the standard two choices, this question offers three choices:
“Completely true,” “Partly true but needing qualification,” and “Completely false.” In addition, it requires students
to add, in a space provided beneath each question, an explanation of every “Partly true” answer. Instructors can thus
build into their tests an element of difficulty that challenges the students’ higher-order thinking skills.
• The Modified Multiple-Choice Question. Similar to the modified true/false question, this question offers the usual
a–d or a–e choices; however, it also requires students to explain the thinking that underlies their choices. (Each
question is followed by a space for this explanation.)
• The Brief Essay Question. This question gives students practice in composition responses in their own words, with
the qualifications and even the brief examples or analogies they believe are the most relevant; yet it does not create a
lengthy reading assignment for the instructor because it specifies a word limit and states that responses that exceed
DELAY YOUR REACTIONS TO STUDENT IDEAS
Many instructors give immediate affirmative or negative signals when a student answers a question or presents an
idea. When such signals are given, the entire class naturally regards the matter as closed and stops thinking. And if
the quickest thinkers in the class answer most of the questions and volunteer most of the ideas, that means the other
students are seldom provided an opportunity to think a question through or ponder a new idea before having their
thought process interrupted. Little wonder slower thinkers become discouraged.
To increase the time your students spend thinking about questions and ideas, mask your reactions while students are
answering questions or volunteering comments and then look around the room mirroring the same quizzical gaze
students are showing you. After counting slowly to three (or higher), ask the person who spoke to elaborate or
someone else to comment on the statement. And be sure to use this approach not only when students make incorrect
assertions but also when they are correct. Both kinds are worth having your class ponder.
This guideline does not mean students should be allowed to remain mired in confusion. It means only that you
should give them sufficient time to extricate themselves and thus experience the satisfaction and confidence that
accompany success in doing so.
CREATE A CLASSROOM ATMOSPHERE CONDUCIVE TO THINKING
The classroom atmosphere most conducive to thinking is one in which process is valued above product. In this way,
mistakes are tolerated and students are encouraged to face them honestly and learn from them, an atmosphere in
which students can be adventurous in their thinking because imagination and originality are prized and in which
criticism can be given and received without embarrassment or hurt feelings. Many students have never experienced
such a classroom atmosphere and so may at first feel uncomfortable in it (or suspicious of you for providing it), but
in time they will appreciate and thrive in it.
MAKE YOUR EXAMINATIONS EXERCISES IN THINKING
Because most of us were educated in a system that emphasized possessing knowledge, but not using it in any
cognitive enterprise, we tend to favor objective testing. Unfortunately, the objective test is an inadequate measure of
thinking proficiency: it denies students an opportunity to demonstrate their creativity, penalizes students who
perceive subtleties and note relationships among ideas, denies students practice in disciplined expression, and
prevents instructors from observing the process by which students reach their conclusions.
The essay test, though free from most of the defects of the objective test, presents other drawbacks. It allows
students to hide paucity or complete absence of thought by multiplying words, and it takes significantly more time to
grade than does an objective test (a fact of no small importance to instructors with large classes).
One way to avoid the limitations of both the objective and the essay test is to use the combination test. This test
consists of these kinds of questions:
• The Modified True/False Question. Rather than the standard two choices, this question offers three choices:
“Completely true,” “Partly true but needing qualification,” and “Completely false.” In addition, it requires students
to add, in a space provided beneath each question, an explanation of every “Partly true” answer. Instructors can thus
build into their tests an element of difficulty that challenges the students’ higher-order thinking skills.
• The Modified Multiple-Choice Question. Similar to the modified true/false question, this question offers the usual
a–d or a–e choices; however, it also requires students to explain the thinking that underlies their choices. (Each
question is followed by a space for this explanation.)
• The Brief Essay Question. This question gives students practice in composition responses in their own words, with
the qualifications and even the brief examples or analogies they believe are the most relevant; yet it does not create a
lengthy reading assignment for the instructor because it specifies a word limit and states that responses that exceed
Loading page 6...
3
the limit will be penalized. A 25-word limit is recommended for relatively simple matters and a 50- or 75-word limit
for complex ones. Holding students to a word limit not only makes grading easier, but it also teaches students the
value of brevity and precision and prepares those who will go on to the professions for the exacting requirements of
professional publication.
The combination test is useful in almost any course with a thinking skills component. But an even better test of
students’ mastery of creative and critical thinking strategies is the kinds of problems and issues presented in The Art
of Thinking. Chances are you will not be able to assign all the applications at the end of each chapter, so when the
time comes to prepare midterm and final examinations, consider using some of them as test questions. (Be sure to
allow enough time for students to give adequate attention to each of the stages of the thinking process.)
the limit will be penalized. A 25-word limit is recommended for relatively simple matters and a 50- or 75-word limit
for complex ones. Holding students to a word limit not only makes grading easier, but it also teaches students the
value of brevity and precision and prepares those who will go on to the professions for the exacting requirements of
professional publication.
The combination test is useful in almost any course with a thinking skills component. But an even better test of
students’ mastery of creative and critical thinking strategies is the kinds of problems and issues presented in The Art
of Thinking. Chances are you will not be able to assign all the applications at the end of each chapter, so when the
time comes to prepare midterm and final examinations, consider using some of them as test questions. (Be sure to
allow enough time for students to give adequate attention to each of the stages of the thinking process.)
Loading page 7...
4
I. Be Aware
1
Developing Your Thinking: An Overview
The way you conduct the class discussion of Chapter 1 will establish the pattern for later class discussions. It is
helpful to explain to students that you intend to offer guidance in applying the lessons of the chapters, and
occasionally to play devil’s advocate to provoke thought, but not to provide “right” answers or to resolve every
dispute.
Some students will have difficulty doing the exercises at the end of Chapter 1 because they have failed to heed the
advice given in the chapter for choosing the best time, place, and working conditions or the strategies for coping
with frustration. You may wish to reinforce this advice in class discussion.
WARM-UP EXERCISES
Most students will have no difficulty recognizing the essential answers in these cases: in 1.1, that proper postage is
required at the time the letter is mailed; in 1.2, that past events do not guarantee future events; in 1.3, that one hour is
one hour no matter when it passes. The real challenge will be to explain those answers to other people. Having
students read their responses aloud will permit them to compare their explanations with those of other students and
help them appreciate the importance of clear, vivid communication of ideas.
APPLICATIONS
1.1. An effective approach to this application is to have students express their views on the statements and listen
to others’ objections to their views. This exercise will help to prepare them for the considerations expressed in the
next three chapters.
1.2. Sally believes, incorrectly, that using facts in a composition makes the composition unoriginal.
1.3. Homer reasons that trying hard guarantees success. It does not. Homer leaps to the conclusion that the test
is unfair (a possibility, certainly) and ignores other possible conclusions; for example, that he read without
understanding the material or that sleeplessness affected his performance.
1.4. This dialogue illustrates a common difficulty in argument. Each individual’s view has some merit. The
challenge is to decide whether a third view can be constructed, one that combines these merits.
1.5. Guy is misinformed about transsexualism. Yet in his final response, he unwittingly hints at an interesting
philosophical question: Is it possible that some transsexuals choose to change, not so much because of hormonal or
psychosexual imperatives but out of a desire to shock others or to punish themselves or their parents?
1.6. The passage implies that a course has value only if it has direct application to one’s career. This idea, of
course, is mistaken. Some students will miss the implication; others will note and approve of it. With
encouragement, those students who recognize the error and understand why it is an error should be able to explain
their thinking effectively to their classmates.
I. Be Aware
1
Developing Your Thinking: An Overview
The way you conduct the class discussion of Chapter 1 will establish the pattern for later class discussions. It is
helpful to explain to students that you intend to offer guidance in applying the lessons of the chapters, and
occasionally to play devil’s advocate to provoke thought, but not to provide “right” answers or to resolve every
dispute.
Some students will have difficulty doing the exercises at the end of Chapter 1 because they have failed to heed the
advice given in the chapter for choosing the best time, place, and working conditions or the strategies for coping
with frustration. You may wish to reinforce this advice in class discussion.
WARM-UP EXERCISES
Most students will have no difficulty recognizing the essential answers in these cases: in 1.1, that proper postage is
required at the time the letter is mailed; in 1.2, that past events do not guarantee future events; in 1.3, that one hour is
one hour no matter when it passes. The real challenge will be to explain those answers to other people. Having
students read their responses aloud will permit them to compare their explanations with those of other students and
help them appreciate the importance of clear, vivid communication of ideas.
APPLICATIONS
1.1. An effective approach to this application is to have students express their views on the statements and listen
to others’ objections to their views. This exercise will help to prepare them for the considerations expressed in the
next three chapters.
1.2. Sally believes, incorrectly, that using facts in a composition makes the composition unoriginal.
1.3. Homer reasons that trying hard guarantees success. It does not. Homer leaps to the conclusion that the test
is unfair (a possibility, certainly) and ignores other possible conclusions; for example, that he read without
understanding the material or that sleeplessness affected his performance.
1.4. This dialogue illustrates a common difficulty in argument. Each individual’s view has some merit. The
challenge is to decide whether a third view can be constructed, one that combines these merits.
1.5. Guy is misinformed about transsexualism. Yet in his final response, he unwittingly hints at an interesting
philosophical question: Is it possible that some transsexuals choose to change, not so much because of hormonal or
psychosexual imperatives but out of a desire to shock others or to punish themselves or their parents?
1.6. The passage implies that a course has value only if it has direct application to one’s career. This idea, of
course, is mistaken. Some students will miss the implication; others will note and approve of it. With
encouragement, those students who recognize the error and understand why it is an error should be able to explain
their thinking effectively to their classmates.
Loading page 8...
5
1.7. Consider this approach: have one student present his answer; ask whether anyone disagrees and, if so, have
that person present her answer; then invite comments and questions from others. (If there is no disagreement, ask
whether anyone who agrees arrived at his or her conclusion by a different approach.) Careful thinkers will begin by
considering whether a teenager could run away from a good wholesome environment as well as from a bad one and
proceed to imagine relevant situations (e.g., peer influence, rebellion against parental rules). Enterprising students
may search the Internet to find psychologists who disagree with the stated view and examine the grounds for their
disagreement. (Note: this same approach can be used for 1.8 and 1.9.)
Note: The 10th edition of The Art of Thinking had a feature called ISSUES FOR EXTENDED ANALYSIS at the
end of each chapter. The rationale for this feature was explained as follows:
This exercise, in this and subsequent chapters, is designed to have students apply their developing thinking
skills in a context that mirrors the full challenge of analyzing issues. The exercise requires evaluation of not one
but two opposing essays, each of which has some merit; in a number of cases, in fact, the merit of the opposing
arguments is very nearly equal. To be reasonable in such situations, students cannot merely choose the side that
matches their opinion—they must accept the insights and reject the mistakes of each side, a process that entails
recognizing and overcoming their own biases. They must also consider the possibility that neither essay
addresses all the facts about the issue; where that seems to be the case, students must conduct additional
research. The exercise also requires evaluation of a dialogue about the essays in which the participants bring
differing perspectives to bear; as in actual classroom discussion, the quality of the contributions is uneven—
some statements are perceptive, others shallow, still others fallacious. Finally, the exercise requires sorting all
these considerations out and then constructing a formal response that will anticipate and withstand the
challenges posed by classmates. (By using issues that are being widely discussed, I aimed to make these
exercises not only challenging but enjoyable.)
The reviews from professors used to guide me in creating this (11th) edition revealed that many did not use the
extended analysis materials. I therefore decided to make the issues simple analysis exercises and to move most of
the accompanying essays and class discussions to this ’s Resource Manual. (In cases where the issues
themselves were significantly changed or deleted, I have not included the original essays and discussions in this
manual.) Instructors who find these materials useful can make them available to students or just raise the points they
make into class discussions to stimulate and deepen thought.
1.9. Here are the essays and the discussion related to this exercise:
ESSAYS
People Are Inherently Good
By Asanti Jones
Rousseau was insightful in noting that people are born good and, left to follow their natural inclinations and
intuitions, will develop their potential and benefit themselves and those around them. A number of conclusions
follow logically from this insight.
First, parents should not impose their beliefs and values on children but instead leave them free to develop
their own. This is particularly so in such matters as religion, politics, and morality. No one has a right to say what
others should regard as right and proper. Each individual must choose for him/herself. And what each chooses,
others should respect.
1.7. Consider this approach: have one student present his answer; ask whether anyone disagrees and, if so, have
that person present her answer; then invite comments and questions from others. (If there is no disagreement, ask
whether anyone who agrees arrived at his or her conclusion by a different approach.) Careful thinkers will begin by
considering whether a teenager could run away from a good wholesome environment as well as from a bad one and
proceed to imagine relevant situations (e.g., peer influence, rebellion against parental rules). Enterprising students
may search the Internet to find psychologists who disagree with the stated view and examine the grounds for their
disagreement. (Note: this same approach can be used for 1.8 and 1.9.)
Note: The 10th edition of The Art of Thinking had a feature called ISSUES FOR EXTENDED ANALYSIS at the
end of each chapter. The rationale for this feature was explained as follows:
This exercise, in this and subsequent chapters, is designed to have students apply their developing thinking
skills in a context that mirrors the full challenge of analyzing issues. The exercise requires evaluation of not one
but two opposing essays, each of which has some merit; in a number of cases, in fact, the merit of the opposing
arguments is very nearly equal. To be reasonable in such situations, students cannot merely choose the side that
matches their opinion—they must accept the insights and reject the mistakes of each side, a process that entails
recognizing and overcoming their own biases. They must also consider the possibility that neither essay
addresses all the facts about the issue; where that seems to be the case, students must conduct additional
research. The exercise also requires evaluation of a dialogue about the essays in which the participants bring
differing perspectives to bear; as in actual classroom discussion, the quality of the contributions is uneven—
some statements are perceptive, others shallow, still others fallacious. Finally, the exercise requires sorting all
these considerations out and then constructing a formal response that will anticipate and withstand the
challenges posed by classmates. (By using issues that are being widely discussed, I aimed to make these
exercises not only challenging but enjoyable.)
The reviews from professors used to guide me in creating this (11th) edition revealed that many did not use the
extended analysis materials. I therefore decided to make the issues simple analysis exercises and to move most of
the accompanying essays and class discussions to this ’s Resource Manual. (In cases where the issues
themselves were significantly changed or deleted, I have not included the original essays and discussions in this
manual.) Instructors who find these materials useful can make them available to students or just raise the points they
make into class discussions to stimulate and deepen thought.
1.9. Here are the essays and the discussion related to this exercise:
ESSAYS
People Are Inherently Good
By Asanti Jones
Rousseau was insightful in noting that people are born good and, left to follow their natural inclinations and
intuitions, will develop their potential and benefit themselves and those around them. A number of conclusions
follow logically from this insight.
First, parents should not impose their beliefs and values on children but instead leave them free to develop
their own. This is particularly so in such matters as religion, politics, and morality. No one has a right to say what
others should regard as right and proper. Each individual must choose for him/herself. And what each chooses,
others should respect.
Loading page 9...
6
Secondly, schools should have as few regulations and formalities as possible. Courses should be suggested by
teachers, but the final determination of what to study and how to do so should be the student’s. If students find a
lecture or other class exercise boring or irrelevant to their needs at the moment, they should be free to choose
another activity. Moreover, any assessment of students’ achievement should be made by the students themselves—
just as they alone know what goals they should set, they alone know how well they have progressed toward reaching
those goals.
If all people received such an upbringing, they would be healthy, happy, and successful. Unfortunately, few
do, and the result is crime, drug and alcohol addiction, child and spouse abuse, and a host of other social problems.
But it is a mistake to meet such problems with more laws and stricter punishment for infractions. The fault lies in
society’s failure to recognize the inherent goodness of people and to ensure their freedom to be themselves.
Nothing More Than Potential
By Inga Nowak
If people are inherently good, it makes sense not to burden them with regimens, rules, and regulations that
hinder the natural expressions of their impulses. And the lifting of such burdens should begin at the earliest time of
life—in childhood. On the other hand, if people are not inherently good—if goodness like wisdom is not inborn but
acquired—then regimens, rules, and regulations are beneficial.
Only a foolish generation would answer such a vital question on the basis of wishful thinking. But that is just
what the past couple of generations did. They installed permissivism in both home and school. They let children
decide what to think about truth and falsity, right and wrong, beauty and ugliness. They discarded the idea of
discipline and let students decide what they would learn and how they would learn it. They put self-esteem above
self-control and eliminated instruction in civics and civility.
Exactly what has been the result of almost half a century of permissivism and self-indulgence? Social chaos.
Parents have lost control of their children and have no idea of how to regain it. Teachers are frustrated in their
attempts to impart knowledge and often fearful for their personal safety. Young people, intent on following their
urges, are making life difficult for themselves and everyone around them, and are filled with resentment without
knowing why.
It’s about time America saw the notion that people are inherently good for the dangerous nonsense it is.
People are not born good or evil but have the potential to be either. And which they become depends partly on the
quality of the training they receive and partly on the choices they make.
CLASS DISCUSSION
EDNA : Jones is right. The old saying “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree” supports his view. People, like
twigs, start out straight. The bending is supplied by others.
WALLY : Jones’s argument is a big cop-out. Efforts to escape personal responsibility are as old as history. They go
all the way back to Adam, who blamed Eve, who in turn said the devil made her do it. Today’s rapists,
child molesters, thieves, and terrorists continue the tradition by blaming their victims. What is different
today is that some prominent thinkers tend to side with the perpetrators.
EDNA : Do you deny that bad environments—slums, for example— are more crime-ridden and produce more
lawbreakers than the suburbs?
WALLY : Not at all. But I also recognize that two children in the same family, exposed to identical influences, often
turn out very differently. One will become a criminal, and the other, a law-abiding citizen; one a
narcissist, the other an altruist; one a sinner, the other a saint.
EDNA : There are always exceptions. I’m talking about what happens as a general rule.
Secondly, schools should have as few regulations and formalities as possible. Courses should be suggested by
teachers, but the final determination of what to study and how to do so should be the student’s. If students find a
lecture or other class exercise boring or irrelevant to their needs at the moment, they should be free to choose
another activity. Moreover, any assessment of students’ achievement should be made by the students themselves—
just as they alone know what goals they should set, they alone know how well they have progressed toward reaching
those goals.
If all people received such an upbringing, they would be healthy, happy, and successful. Unfortunately, few
do, and the result is crime, drug and alcohol addiction, child and spouse abuse, and a host of other social problems.
But it is a mistake to meet such problems with more laws and stricter punishment for infractions. The fault lies in
society’s failure to recognize the inherent goodness of people and to ensure their freedom to be themselves.
Nothing More Than Potential
By Inga Nowak
If people are inherently good, it makes sense not to burden them with regimens, rules, and regulations that
hinder the natural expressions of their impulses. And the lifting of such burdens should begin at the earliest time of
life—in childhood. On the other hand, if people are not inherently good—if goodness like wisdom is not inborn but
acquired—then regimens, rules, and regulations are beneficial.
Only a foolish generation would answer such a vital question on the basis of wishful thinking. But that is just
what the past couple of generations did. They installed permissivism in both home and school. They let children
decide what to think about truth and falsity, right and wrong, beauty and ugliness. They discarded the idea of
discipline and let students decide what they would learn and how they would learn it. They put self-esteem above
self-control and eliminated instruction in civics and civility.
Exactly what has been the result of almost half a century of permissivism and self-indulgence? Social chaos.
Parents have lost control of their children and have no idea of how to regain it. Teachers are frustrated in their
attempts to impart knowledge and often fearful for their personal safety. Young people, intent on following their
urges, are making life difficult for themselves and everyone around them, and are filled with resentment without
knowing why.
It’s about time America saw the notion that people are inherently good for the dangerous nonsense it is.
People are not born good or evil but have the potential to be either. And which they become depends partly on the
quality of the training they receive and partly on the choices they make.
CLASS DISCUSSION
EDNA : Jones is right. The old saying “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree” supports his view. People, like
twigs, start out straight. The bending is supplied by others.
WALLY : Jones’s argument is a big cop-out. Efforts to escape personal responsibility are as old as history. They go
all the way back to Adam, who blamed Eve, who in turn said the devil made her do it. Today’s rapists,
child molesters, thieves, and terrorists continue the tradition by blaming their victims. What is different
today is that some prominent thinkers tend to side with the perpetrators.
EDNA : Do you deny that bad environments—slums, for example— are more crime-ridden and produce more
lawbreakers than the suburbs?
WALLY : Not at all. But I also recognize that two children in the same family, exposed to identical influences, often
turn out very differently. One will become a criminal, and the other, a law-abiding citizen; one a
narcissist, the other an altruist; one a sinner, the other a saint.
EDNA : There are always exceptions. I’m talking about what happens as a general rule.
Loading page 10...
7
WALLY : If Jones were right, then more permissive ages would have fewer social problems than more restrictive
ages. Yet over the last few decades, our society has become very permissive, and our social problems
have increased.
EDNA : Don’t kid yourself. The influences of parents, teachers, and other authority figures are every bit as strong
today. They’re just more subtle.
WALLY : I’m not saying kids aren’t influenced by adults. I’m saying that they show the tendency to bad behavior
way before such influence takes place. Children who are barely able to crawl display meanness and
selfishness. Most parental guidance aims to correct already-existing bad tendencies.
WALLY : If Jones were right, then more permissive ages would have fewer social problems than more restrictive
ages. Yet over the last few decades, our society has become very permissive, and our social problems
have increased.
EDNA : Don’t kid yourself. The influences of parents, teachers, and other authority figures are every bit as strong
today. They’re just more subtle.
WALLY : I’m not saying kids aren’t influenced by adults. I’m saying that they show the tendency to bad behavior
way before such influence takes place. Children who are barely able to crawl display meanness and
selfishness. Most parental guidance aims to correct already-existing bad tendencies.
Loading page 11...
8
2
Establish a Foundation
WARM-UP EXERCISES
An effective answer to 2.1 focuses on the fact that “remember” refers exclusively to past events. The best answer to
2.2 is yes and no: yes in the sense that the same words are being uttered each time; no in the sense that the specific
meaning of “tomorrow” is different each time. (One day it will mean “Tuesday,” and the next, “Wednesday.”) The
problem in 2.3 is the ambiguity of the word going. If it is taken to mean intended destination, then the man is
“going” upstairs. However, if it is taken to refer to actual destination, then he is “going” downstairs.
APPLICATIONS
2.1. Clem implies, incorrectly, that people never err in their assessments of truths. (The only way to decide if a
particular assessment is in error is to use a standard beyond subjectivity.) Clem also confuses “All human beings are
created equal” with “All ideas are created equal.”
2.2. The fact that millions of people believed Tipton was a man doesn’t change the truth of the matter. The
Tipton case illustrates the error of the popular notion that people create their own truth.
2.3. One effective way to handle this application in class is to have several students detail their analyses and
invite other students to comment.
2.4. The main ideas this question challenges are the moral principles that people have rights existing
independently of any government or culture and the ideal of fairness.
2.5. Be sure that in discussing the issues in this exercise, students demonstrate awareness that one can even
precede another without causing it, that not all causation involves force or necessity, and that free will is a “wild
card” in human affairs.
2.6. The most helpful role for you to take in leading class discussion of the moral issues in this application is
that of monitor, assuring that students address all significant moral questions, recognize where considerations
conflict, and consider all possible views before choosing. Although it is helpful for students to hear your analysis
and judgment of an issue on occasion, if it is given too often, many students will be tempted to guess what answers
will please you rather than search for the most reasonable answers.
2.7, 2.8. Because these applications specifically call for research, you might begin class discussion by having
students state the pro and con arguments they found and to have someone list them on the board. You could then
have students evaluate each of the listed arguments and then, on the basis of that evaluation, decide which view of
sport hunting is more reasonable. An interesting possibility: Some students may agree with the evaluations of the
various arguments and still reject the majority conclusion. You can then ask them to explain their rejection.
As I explained in my comments about Chapter 1, Application 9, the special exercises and discussion found at the
end of each chapter in the 10th edition have been removed from this edition. However, I have put them in this
manual so that instructors who find these materials useful can make them available to students or just raise the
points they make into class discussions to stimulate and deepen thought. Following are the essays and the class
discussion for Application 2.8. (This pattern is followed in subsequent chapters in this manual.)
2
Establish a Foundation
WARM-UP EXERCISES
An effective answer to 2.1 focuses on the fact that “remember” refers exclusively to past events. The best answer to
2.2 is yes and no: yes in the sense that the same words are being uttered each time; no in the sense that the specific
meaning of “tomorrow” is different each time. (One day it will mean “Tuesday,” and the next, “Wednesday.”) The
problem in 2.3 is the ambiguity of the word going. If it is taken to mean intended destination, then the man is
“going” upstairs. However, if it is taken to refer to actual destination, then he is “going” downstairs.
APPLICATIONS
2.1. Clem implies, incorrectly, that people never err in their assessments of truths. (The only way to decide if a
particular assessment is in error is to use a standard beyond subjectivity.) Clem also confuses “All human beings are
created equal” with “All ideas are created equal.”
2.2. The fact that millions of people believed Tipton was a man doesn’t change the truth of the matter. The
Tipton case illustrates the error of the popular notion that people create their own truth.
2.3. One effective way to handle this application in class is to have several students detail their analyses and
invite other students to comment.
2.4. The main ideas this question challenges are the moral principles that people have rights existing
independently of any government or culture and the ideal of fairness.
2.5. Be sure that in discussing the issues in this exercise, students demonstrate awareness that one can even
precede another without causing it, that not all causation involves force or necessity, and that free will is a “wild
card” in human affairs.
2.6. The most helpful role for you to take in leading class discussion of the moral issues in this application is
that of monitor, assuring that students address all significant moral questions, recognize where considerations
conflict, and consider all possible views before choosing. Although it is helpful for students to hear your analysis
and judgment of an issue on occasion, if it is given too often, many students will be tempted to guess what answers
will please you rather than search for the most reasonable answers.
2.7, 2.8. Because these applications specifically call for research, you might begin class discussion by having
students state the pro and con arguments they found and to have someone list them on the board. You could then
have students evaluate each of the listed arguments and then, on the basis of that evaluation, decide which view of
sport hunting is more reasonable. An interesting possibility: Some students may agree with the evaluations of the
various arguments and still reject the majority conclusion. You can then ask them to explain their rejection.
As I explained in my comments about Chapter 1, Application 9, the special exercises and discussion found at the
end of each chapter in the 10th edition have been removed from this edition. However, I have put them in this
manual so that instructors who find these materials useful can make them available to students or just raise the
points they make into class discussions to stimulate and deepen thought. Following are the essays and the class
discussion for Application 2.8. (This pattern is followed in subsequent chapters in this manual.)
Loading page 12...
9
ESSAYS
Big Government Is Necessary
By Curt Weber
People are understandably concerned about the economic problems that we are facing these days. But many
are using these matters to argue against the size of government and the scope of governmental initiatives. That
argument makes no sense. Big government is not the problem but the solution. To appreciate this, we need only
consider how government handled recent problems.
In 2008 major financial institutions were on the verge of collapse. They were saved only by the timely
institution of the TARP program. In early 2009 the economy was still shaken from the potential financial disaster, so
the government created the “stimulus” initiatives and ensured its recovery. Similarly, General Motors was on the
verge of bankruptcy until the government took over the company and made it financially sound. The General Motors
case proves that the government is not the enemy of the private sector but an invaluable partner.
It is fashionable to point to the limits on the federal government written into the Constitution. People who take
that view, however, fail to acknowledge that modern America is very different from America in the late 18th
century. The Founding Fathers could not have imagined the challenges that would arise over the next couple of
centuries.
We should be thankful for Big Government. It has provided Social Security for the elderly, welfare for the
indigent, and most recently, health care coverage for the thirty-odd million people who lacked it. It also solved the
2010 Gulf oil spill and prevented its recurrence by banning further drilling. And it continues to protect us from
tyranny.
America is bigger and more complex than ever before and it needs a big government to match that size and
complexity.
Too Big for Our Own Good
By Jessica Torres
Thomas Jefferson warned that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain
ground.” That is exactly what has been happening with government in our time. And it is no coincidence that the
larger government grows, the worse our difficulties become.
Some people credit Big Government with solving the crisis in the housing market. In reality, it created the
crisis. Some loony congressmen decided that owning a home is a fundamental right so they forced banks to make
loans to people who couldn’t repay them. Then when the housing market crashed, they howled at the greed of
bankers.
Big Government is also largely responsible for the energy crisis. They outlawed offshore drilling and the
development of the Anwar, Alaska, oil fields and then denounced our dependence on foreign oil. They also forced
oil companies to drill in much deeper water than they had traditionally, and then blamed British Petroleum for the
deepwater Gulf oil spill. As if that weren’t enough, President Obama then banned further drilling in the eastern Gulf
at the same time that Brazil, China, and other countries are drilling elsewhere in the Gulf.
Big Government may have good intentions but its results seldom measure up. The Great Society program
aggravated the problem of poverty and robbed many people of their self-reliance. Social Security was a good idea
but government turned it into an unsustainable Ponzi scheme. The only jobs that the stimulus program “stimulated”
were in government. The average salaries of government employees are reportedly double the salaries of private
sector employees. And government employees add nothing to the national wealth—they merely draw from the
public treasury.
Thomas Paine once observed, “That government is best that governs least.” He was right.
ESSAYS
Big Government Is Necessary
By Curt Weber
People are understandably concerned about the economic problems that we are facing these days. But many
are using these matters to argue against the size of government and the scope of governmental initiatives. That
argument makes no sense. Big government is not the problem but the solution. To appreciate this, we need only
consider how government handled recent problems.
In 2008 major financial institutions were on the verge of collapse. They were saved only by the timely
institution of the TARP program. In early 2009 the economy was still shaken from the potential financial disaster, so
the government created the “stimulus” initiatives and ensured its recovery. Similarly, General Motors was on the
verge of bankruptcy until the government took over the company and made it financially sound. The General Motors
case proves that the government is not the enemy of the private sector but an invaluable partner.
It is fashionable to point to the limits on the federal government written into the Constitution. People who take
that view, however, fail to acknowledge that modern America is very different from America in the late 18th
century. The Founding Fathers could not have imagined the challenges that would arise over the next couple of
centuries.
We should be thankful for Big Government. It has provided Social Security for the elderly, welfare for the
indigent, and most recently, health care coverage for the thirty-odd million people who lacked it. It also solved the
2010 Gulf oil spill and prevented its recurrence by banning further drilling. And it continues to protect us from
tyranny.
America is bigger and more complex than ever before and it needs a big government to match that size and
complexity.
Too Big for Our Own Good
By Jessica Torres
Thomas Jefferson warned that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain
ground.” That is exactly what has been happening with government in our time. And it is no coincidence that the
larger government grows, the worse our difficulties become.
Some people credit Big Government with solving the crisis in the housing market. In reality, it created the
crisis. Some loony congressmen decided that owning a home is a fundamental right so they forced banks to make
loans to people who couldn’t repay them. Then when the housing market crashed, they howled at the greed of
bankers.
Big Government is also largely responsible for the energy crisis. They outlawed offshore drilling and the
development of the Anwar, Alaska, oil fields and then denounced our dependence on foreign oil. They also forced
oil companies to drill in much deeper water than they had traditionally, and then blamed British Petroleum for the
deepwater Gulf oil spill. As if that weren’t enough, President Obama then banned further drilling in the eastern Gulf
at the same time that Brazil, China, and other countries are drilling elsewhere in the Gulf.
Big Government may have good intentions but its results seldom measure up. The Great Society program
aggravated the problem of poverty and robbed many people of their self-reliance. Social Security was a good idea
but government turned it into an unsustainable Ponzi scheme. The only jobs that the stimulus program “stimulated”
were in government. The average salaries of government employees are reportedly double the salaries of private
sector employees. And government employees add nothing to the national wealth—they merely draw from the
public treasury.
Thomas Paine once observed, “That government is best that governs least.” He was right.
Loading page 13...
10 more pages available. Scroll down to load them.
Preview Mode
Sign in to access the full document!
100%