Christine Faye N.

Javier
BSN-2E

LEARNING REFLECTION
Introduction
In logic and critical thinking, we will improve our ability to identify, analyze, and
evaluate arguments by other people (including politicians, used car salesmen, and teachers), as
well as construct arguments of our own in order to convince others and help us decide what to
believe or do. This specialization introduces general standards of good reasoning and offers tools
to improve our critical thinking skills. These skills will help us determine when an argument is
being given, what its crucial parts are, and what it implies implicitly. We will also learn how to
apply deductive and inductive standards for assessing arguments and how to detect and avoid
fallacies.
Introduction to the Course
This topic includes Greek and medieval philosophers, as well as current philosophers.
This topic focuses on philosophers who pioneered logical and critical thinking and left a
significant legacy. We have prominent thinkers from various times. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St.
Agustin, St. Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers,
and Sigmund Freud are among those who have influenced modern thought. Each of them has
their own heritage in logical and critical thinking.
Based on my understanding, Their way of thinking had a significant impact on how
Western culture regarded life. Through his understanding of Aristotle's works, Saint Augustine
turned from Plato's philosophy to Christianity. Essentialism is a very spiritual way of thinking in
which you believe that Essence is what makes up the universe.
Nonetheless, Saint Thomas' understanding of Aristotle kept the concept of the Unmoved
Mover as God and the thought that God causes everything. Essentialism and Existentialism are
two distinct and distinct views/constructions of reality. The main principle that leads Saint
Thomas Aquinas to his unique interpretation of Christianity is that "Man is a rational animal."
These two perspectives on life are still very much prevalent today, and while Sartre and other
Existentialist philosophy is currently more mainstream, both perspectives are still present.
Based on the ideas mentioned by the reporters, this topic most likely helped me
understand how to be a good and responsible decision-maker, and it also helped me not only
today but also in my future.

The Elements of Meaning

This topic is divided into various sub-topics, including meaning analysis, necessary and
sufficient conditions, critical thinking in ordinary language, assessing sources, evaluating internet
material, and finding and assessing sources.
According to what I've learned, it focuses on clarifying the meaning of a phrase or a
scenario step by step. This topic assists us in thinking clearly while making judgments and in
comprehending the essence of critical thinking, which is that it all begins with the essential
component of thinking clearly. Furthermore, in order to answer and respond to a certain topic, we
must first analyze what the question implies in order to properly present replies simply. We must
constantly analyze complicated issues in order to improve and exercise our logical and critical
thinking skills.
In conclusion, this topic taught me how to evaluate things critically, which I know will be
beneficial as a student nurse, especially when it comes to patient care. It is crucial to be
knowledgeable and to be able to objectively examine the patient.

Argument Analysis
This topic covers the examination and distribution of such logic-based arguments. So, in
logic, an argument is a collection of statements.
Others have premises or assumptions for an argument, but none have a conclusion. This section
contains topics that assist me in understanding another person's point of view, differentiating
between argument and non-argument, and determining a valid argument.
According to what I've learned about this topic, argument analysis focuses on
propagating and recognizing such arguments, whether they are valid or not. I recognized that
there are various variables to consider and utilize as a foundation for examining such an
argument. It also relates to persuading one individual to believe in your particular perspective
about something. This indicates the elements required to build a strong argument. Good
arguments must include criteria that will serve as a guide not only in the development but also in
the identification of good arguments.
This topic taught me how to recognize strong arguments. In that sense, it will assist me in
learning how to explain or convince what my thoughts are all about in good argument form.

Logic
Logic is a science as it is a systematic study of the method and principles of correct
reasoning. Logic also studies and clarifies the different types of fallacies which are committed in
correct reasoning.
According to what I've learnt, the term "reasoning" may refer to both a mental process
and a mental result. In logic, we are not concerned with the process of reasoning itself, but rather
with arguments as a product. When a notion is conveyed in words, it becomes an argument.
Some logicians argue that logic is the study of thinking laws. However, this viewpoint is
incorrect since all reasoning requires thinking, but not all thinking can be considered reasoning.
Logic is concerned with correct reasoning rather than all sorts of thinking. Many mental
activities, such as remembering, visualizing, daydreaming, and so on, might be considered
examples of thinking that do not include any reasoning. All of these phenomena are studied by
psychology, while logic exclusively deals with reasoning.
 To summarize, logic helps us in the development of reasoning quality. It gives a method
for strengthening and honing thinking skills. Because it seeks to provide a firm foundation for
distinguishing between proper and erroneous reasoning.

Venn Diagrams
According to my understanding of the topic, it focuses on utilizing diagrams to remove
and identify the following vital and target things:
It aids in the visual representation of information, which benefits professionals and students by
letting them to grasp the rationale behind specific pieces' interactions. Furthermore, it aids in
choosing between two or more options. It facilitates comparison and contrast. Thus, utilizing
venn diagrams for evaluation tends to spark debates and offer information about participants'
thinking, which aids in decision-making. Furthermore, venn diagrams add to the complexity of
reasoning through logic. Mathematical difficulties are easily simplified to a comprehensible
manner. Data patterns that were before invisible are becoming more visible.
Introduction to Fallacies
This topic includes the different types of fallacies such as formal vs. informal fallacies;
false dichotomy, causal slippery slope, and appeal to authority; Inconsistency, irrelevance
insufficiency and inappropriate presumption.
I have learned that there are two sorts of frequent fallacies: formal and informal fallacies.
They vary from formal fallacies in one sense. refers to arguments with an improper structure or
form whereas informal fallacies pertain to arguments with faulty or irrelevant premises. In this
topic, I learned about typical informal fallacies, such as argumentum ad hominem, which
involves attacking the person rather than the argument itself. We also have the strawman fallacy,
which implies disputing an argument and replacing it with a false one.
Finally, I understood how important it is to understand how to filter through information
and hunt for further evidence or proof to ensure that what someone claims is correct.

Ten Common Fallacies

In this topic I learned that Fallacy implies "exaggerated." The gamblers' fallacy, also
known as the Monte Carlos fallacy, states that the probability is either high or low. Starting the
question, sometimes known as a circular argument or gibberish. Ad hominem (against the
person) refers to rejecting the individual's assertion. criticizing the person rather than the
statement Ad hominem (abusive) implies that the individual is a fool. Personal experience is
used to either justify or reject a claim in ad hominem circumstantial reasoning. Ad hominem tu
quo que (you too) refers to mirroring another's opinions. with relation to the speaker Ad
ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) is Latin for "to see is to believe." It is also known as the
"burden of truth fallacy." Argumentum ad passions implies "they used to win an argument
without presenting any proof or facts," and hence they exploited emotion. Rather than using
logic, appeal to strong emotions or excitement. This misconception is aimed for the audience's
heart and powerful sentiments. "Bandwagon" implies that you desire to be a part of something.
Everyone's habits: You are enticed or convinced to join the crowd. Furthermore, "snob appeal"
implies that you desire to be distinct from others in a way that elevates you above them.
Furthermore, the argumentum consensum gentium focuses on the majority's opinions. Finally,
cognitive bias implies that anything impacts a person's belief or view. They are also launching a
personal attack. Humans are typical in this regard.

Scientific Reasoning
In Scientific Reasoning, I learned that there are two types of ways we can use scientific
reasoning: inductive and deductive. The majority of the time, inductive procedures are used to
reach a lot of conclusions.

The deductive method, which starts with a broad assumption, predicts specific outcomes
depending on how you picture them. Individuals that are most suited to their environment are
more likely to survive and pass on their qualities to the next generation.
I conclude that scientific reasoning is highly useful in our everyday life since it allows us
to prove that our conclusion is correct.

5 Ways to Identify a Cause

In this topic I learned the difference method, in which two instances are compared to see
what they have in common. If they have one thing in common, that may be the cause. In the
meantime, the combined method is searching for absence. looks for occurrences of an event that
have a single commonality. They ignore the similarities and look for distinctions. Causation
requires both necessary and adequate circumstances. "Sufficient" denotes that one event ensures
the occurrence of another specified event. "Necessary," whereas the term "obligatory" denotes
something that is required. Causality is defined as a collection of conditions that produce the
effects. It mentions the causal network. Mill's technique includes limitations; for example, if
there is a lack of proof, we must emphasize that this is the root of the problem. In addition,
assuming introduces a fallacy. And there are occasions where it may occur for a certain amount
of time or just at the correct time. Furthermore, Mill's technique makes use of common sense. It
takes time to establish the link between cause and effect. There were some events that occurred,
and here is where the genetic fallacy comes into play.

Furthermore, it benefited me as a student in understanding how to articulate the cause and

effect of a single occurrence or event. That way, I'll know how to manage it and come up with a
solution.