A key part of critical thinking, especially when using inductive reasoning, requ

Question

A key part of critical thinking, especially when using inductive reasoning, requires us to evaluate sources of information. That is, whether or not they're credible. Therefore, it's vitally important we develop good source analysis skills. The following 4 websites were used as references for academic papers. evaluate whether they were good, credible sources for the assignment's topic? Be sure to explain your reasoning.

Paper 1: Topic: Why hands wrinkle with prolonged bathing. Source #1: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/11/169144851/getting-a-handle-on-why-fingers-wrinkle

Paper 2: Topic: Is it safer smoking tobacco using hookah? Source #2: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobacco_industry/hookahs/index.htm

Paper 3: Topic: Does the painting, Judith Beheading Holofernes by Artemisia Gentileschi circa 1620, have aesthetic value? Websites: Source #3: https://leafcollector.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/judith-slaying-holofernes-artemisia-gentileschi/ Source #4: http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/baroque/Artemisia-Gentileschi.html

Explanation / Answer

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary. Also, the third paper has a 404 error for the article.

(Answer) Inductive reasoning is when the logic is induced or caused by the source. By this form of reasoning, a statement is reasonable if its source is reasonable.

Paper 1: In this dialogue, Lichtman discusses why human fingers wrinkle when they get wet. After carrying on the discussion, Lichtman says that Mark Changizi who is a neuroscientist, has found out why wet fingers wrinkle. It turns out that it is an evolutionary trait that enabled early man to have better grip under water. Furthermore, he conducted a study of Japanese macaques in hot springs water to support his hypothesis.

Mark Changizi is a legitimate theoretical cognitive scientist who specialises in evolutionary studies. Therefore, the discussion in this paper revolves around legitimate information.

Paper 2: American Lung Association and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are two of the top contributors to this study. I reckon most of the statistics are legible. However, in certain places, the authors mention that a small study that was conducted gave them the results. The authors do not mention certain institutions or authors that may have conducted the research. Although the major facts of this paper are sourced from proper studies, they seem to be connected with “filler” information that is used simply to help prove the hypothesis.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.