Module Code: H6AC
Long Title Argument and Critique
Title Argument and Critique
Module Level: LEVEL 6
EQF Level: 5
EHEA Level: Short Cycle
Credits: 5
Module Coordinator:  
Module Author: Laura Costelloe
Departments: NCI Learning & Teaching
Specifications of the qualifications and experience required of staff  
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of this module the learner will be able to:
# Learning Outcome Description
LO1 Identify and distinguish the major components of deductive and inductive arguments.
LO2 Recognise the key components of an effective argument.
LO3 Evaluate arguments which support or critique a particular position.
LO4 Deliver effective and convincing arguments on a variety of subjects.
Dependencies
Module Recommendations

This is prior learning (or a practical skill) that is required before enrolment on this module. While the prior learning is expressed as named NCI module(s) it also allows for learning (in another module or modules) which is equivalent to the learning specified in the named module(s).
No recommendations listed
Co-requisite Modules
No Co-requisite modules listed
Entry requirements  
 

Module Content & Assessment

Indicative Content
Reasoning: deductive and inductive arguments
- Persuasion and argument - The role of reason in argument - Inductive reasoning - Deductive reasoning
Key components of an effective argument.
Discussion and analysis of the key components of an effective argument, e.g. definition, assumptions, premises, evidence, examples, authoritative testimony, satire, irony and sarcasm
Evaluate arguments which support or critique a particular position
-Discussion and analysis of a broad range of argument from a variety of sources, including media, film etc. - Argument critique focusing on thesis, purpose, methods, delivery style
Deliver effective and convincing arguments on a variety of subjects.
Learners will work individually and in groups to develop their skills in argument and critique, progressing from short arguments to more lengthy and interactive debates. Peer- and tutor-feedback will be provided throughout.
Assessment Breakdown%
Coursework100.00%

Assessments

Full Time

Coursework
Assessment Type: Presentation % of total: 100
Assessment Date: n/a Outcome addressed: 1,2,3,4
Non-Marked: No
Assessment Description:
Learners will deliver a number of presentations - both individual and group - throughout the module, initially short in duration (3-5 mins) as formative assessment. Presentations will gradually increase, both in duration and as summative assessment components, e.g. learners will present an analysis of what they believe to be an effective argument. Learners are expected to show clips which focus on specific features of the argument and engage in discussion of their role and function.
No End of Module Assessment
No Workplace Assessment
Reassessment Requirement
Coursework Only
This module is reassessed solely on the basis of re-submitted coursework. There is no repeat written examination.

NCIRL reserves the right to alter the nature and timings of assessment

 

Module Workload

Module Target Workload Hours 0 Hours
Workload: Full Time
Workload Type Workload Description Hours Frequency Average Weekly Learner Workload
Lecture per week 2 Once per semester 0.17
Independent Learning No Description 8.5 Once per semester 0.71
Total Weekly Contact Hours 0.17
Workload: Part Time
Workload Type Workload Description Hours Frequency Average Weekly Learner Workload
Independent Learning No Description 8.5 Once per semester 0.71
Lecture per week 2 Once per semester 0.17
Total Weekly Contact Hours 0.17
 

Module Resources

Recommended Book Resources
  • Inch, E.S. and Tudor, K.H.. (2014), Critical Thinking and Communication: the use of reason in argument, 7th ed.. Harlow, Pearson Education.
Supplementary Book Resources
  • Feldman, R.. (2014), Reason and Argument, 2nd ed.. Pearson, Harlow.
  • Lee, M.. (2014), Strategies of Argument: essays in ancient ethics, epistemology and logic, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Swatridge, C.. (2014), The Oxford Guide to Effective Argument and Critical Thinking, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Tindale, C.W.. (2004), Rhetorical Argumentation: principles of theory and practice, Sage, London.
Supplementary Article/Paper Resources
  • Amgoud, L. and Prade, H.. (2009), Using arguments for making and explaining decisions, Artificial Intelligence, 173.
  • Davies, M.. (2011), Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter?, Higher Education, 62(3).
Other Resources
Discussion Note: