Critical Thinking for College Success Module 10 Homework This assignment supports Module Objectives 1-3 To complete this assignment, download this document and open in Microsoft Word (all students...

need this done full directions in the file


Critical Thinking for College Success Module 10 Homework This assignment supports Module Objectives 1-3 To complete this assignment, download this document and open in Microsoft Word (all students have free online access to Microsoft Office Products (Office 365): login using your Star ID and password: https://login.microsoftonline.com/?whr=minnstate.edu). When complete, save your file in docx or pdf format, then upload it into the D2L Assignment Submission Folder for Module 10 Homework. Please use our Module 10 Learning Activities as a reference Case Study: Authority Directions:  In this assignment you will practice recognizing and evaluating authority arguments. We will use this video as a case study: Russian Disinformation: From Cold War to Kanye. Episode 1: Meet the KGB Spies Who Invented Fake News (Here’s the link in case you need to copy and paste: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-disinformation-fake-news-elections.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article) Be sure to only watch Episode 1. If you need to login to the New York Times, remember that you have free access. Directions for signing up for access are posted on the Content Page in the Important Course Documents Module. Begin by watching the video and then complete the two sections below. Add space as needed.  Section I: Identify (10 points) Choose one authority argument from the video. 1. Example of an authority argument from “Meet the KGB Spies Who Invented Fake News.” Put this in the form of an argument identifying the conclusion and supporting premise.  It should look like: · Premise:  Authority X says Y. · Conclusion: Y is true. You just need to fill in X and Y. 2. Explain how this is an authority argument and offer some context. This discussion should be at least one full paragraph (4-5 sentences). Remember Mantra 4 to Think in “Paragraphs”. Section II: Evaluate (10 points) Evaluate the example you gave in Section I. Is this a good authority argument? Is the source trustworthy? Why or why not? Do other experts corroborate this claim? Does the authority have a conflict of interest? Etc. This discussion should be at least one full paragraph (4-5 sentences). Remember Mantra 4 to Think in “Paragraphs”.