Submit Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2019 (5:00 p.m.) You must submit your exam

Submit Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2019 (5:00 p.m.) You must submit your exam to the websiteon or beforethe submit date. Be sure to keep a copy of your exam. ?Checknowtobesureyouhaveprintedorcanviewallsevenpagesofthisdocument. To avoid possible issues with accessing outside links all of the examples of reasoning (i.e. passages/reports) you will be evaluating have been included directly on this exam. ?Download and savethe exam now. Difficulty accessing the course website is not an acceptable excuse for failure to submit the exam by the deadline. (If the server is not functioning properly close to the deadline for exam submission, and this is confirmed by IT Services, the deadline will be extended by the amount of time the server is down.) ?Work submitted must be completed by you, and by you alone.Do not discuss this exam, communicate about any aspect of this exam, or work on this exam with others. Doing so constitutes plagiarism. (See the Course Outline for the Faculty of Arts and Social Science Policy on Plagiarism.) GENERAL DIRECTIONS: (1) You must makeand keepboth an electronic and a hard copy of your exam until you receive your final grade. (2) The exam consists offourquestions. The tasks assigned inSections 1 Credibility & Expertise,2 Causal Reasoningand3 Studies, each require concise answers to be written using sentences and paragraph/s rather than point form. The task assigned forSection 4 Integration,requires you to write a short essay. Be mindful of word limits assigned for each section. Grade penalties (10% deduction) will be applied for exceeding the limits indicated. Format and Submission of Exam 1.Your exam must be submitted as an attachment inMicrosoft Word or in Rich Text Format.Exams submitted in other formats will not be accepted. Working in Microsoft Word, prepare your exam as you normally would prepare an assignment, following these format directions: Name on top right corner, double spaced, 11 or 12 pitch font.Absolutely no late submissions will be accepted. The exam is due to be submitted by 5:00 am Wednesday August 14th, 2019. 2. Save a copy of your document as a Microsoft Word or rtf (Rich Text Format) file, using the filename:yourlastname,followed byfinal.Exams submitted in other formats will not be accepted. 3. Submit your exam to the assignments section of the course website by the due date, just as you have submitted the assignments for the course. Late exams will not be accepted, so allow enough time for Black Board slowdowns or difficulty submitting; do not submit at the last minute. Section 1: Credibility & Expertise 25% After reading the CBC News report,Beyond Meat says its burgers are healthier than beef. Health experts aren’t so sure, assess the credibility ofBeyond Meat’s Chief Innovation Officer,expert,Dariush Ajami, as a source of the claim,“Beyond Meat products are an improvement nutritionally (healthier than beef)”. Provide sufficient support for your overall judgement about (1) whether or not Ajami is a credible source of this claim and (2) whether or it ought to be accepted. (Word limit: 250 words max.) p. 2 of 7 Beyond Meat says its burgers are healthier than beef. Health experts aren’t so sure… Nutritionists say data doesn’t exist yet to show that processed plant-based burger trumps meat Canadians can’t get enough of Beyond Meat’s plant-based burger that’s designed to taste just like beef. But does Beyond’s burger qualify as a healthy protein alternative? Beyond Meat says yes. On its website, the California-based company markets its plant-based products as “better for you” options that don’t come with the major health risks associated with certain kinds of meat. However, nutrition experts CBC News interviewed argue that there’s no hard scientific data—at least not yet—to show that a processed plant-based patty trumps beef. Toronto-based registered dietitian Rosie Schwartz said the Beyond Burger is highly processed, and may not necessarily be healthier than a small, portion-controlled, lean piece of meat. (CBC) It contains close to 20 ingredients, including refined coconut oil, pea protein isolate and flavouring. Schwartz says that qualifies it as a highly processed food—something that Canadians are advised to limit in their diet, along with processed and fatty meat. “When Health Canada says we should be choosing more plant-based protein alternatives, I believe they’re talking about whole foods. They’re not talking about ultra-processed foods,” said Schwartz. Food scientist Ben Bohrer says when comparing a Beyond Burger with beef, the nutritional composition is fairly similar. “They try to match ground beef as closely as they can,” said Bohrer, a professor at the University of Guelph. “If you’re doing that, then I don’t know how you could say that there are advantages to the product that you’ve made.” Beyond Meat CEO Ethan Brown argues such comparisons are too simplistic because they don’t factor in the reported health risks—such as cancer and heart disease—that are associated with eating red and processed meat. “The media has an obligation to get this stuff right,” said Brown in a phone interview. “If consumers are reading these [news] pieces, and going away thinking they just as well might be eating red meat, that’s not fair to them.” As proof, Beyond Meat sent CBC News information on numerous health studies looking at the implications of eating meat. The most recent study the company pointed to was published in June by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. It found that upping one’s red meat intake—processed red meat, in particular—increased the risk of premature death. “I’m imploring people to please do their research,” said Brown. “The health implications of red and processed meat really stretch far beyond saturated fat levels.” Dr. Frank Hu, senior author of the Harvard study, says the research so far demonstrates that eating too much red meat, especially processed meat, can be harmful to one’s health. “Replacing red meat with other sources of protein, especially plant-based protein food, can p. 3 of 7 reduce [the] risk of chronic disease and premature death,” said Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard. But he said we don’t yet have research showing that a processed plant-based burger is a healthier food choice. “Based on the data we have, we can make a prediction they’re better,” said Hu. “But this type of study hasn’t been done yet to directly compare the health effects of the two types of burgers.” Beyond Meat, however, is sticking to its claims. “Given the abundance of research clearly demonstrating the link between red and processed meat consumption and health risks, we stand firmly behind our belief that Beyond Meat products are an improvement nutritionally,” Dariush Ajami, Beyond Meat’s chief innovation officer, said in an email. He added that the Beyond burger also has the benefit of containing no cholesterol or animal-derived saturated fat, and is lower in saturated fat than burgers made from fattier cuts of beef. Example is derived from: Harris, Sophia. “Beyond Meat Says Its Burgers Are Healthier than Beef. Health Experts Aren’t so Sure | CBC News.” , CBC/Radio Canada, 24 July 2019. CBCnews Section 2: Causal Reasoning 10% Directions:Evaluate the causal reasoning in the passage below. Your evaluation should be no more than a brief paragraph in length (Word limit: 150 words max). In your answer: ? Identify any causal claim(s) stated or implied in the passage, and explain what evidence (if any) is offered. ? Explain whether the evidence is adequate, being sure to give reasons for your judgement. If the writer commits oversimplification, post hoc, slippery slope, or confusing correlation with cause, your answer shouldexplicitlyname the error and include support for your charge. Elderly Man Dies While Watching ‘Annabelle Comes Home’ in the CinemaThe terrifying horror film series has claimed another real-life victim. Have you watched ‘Annabelle Comes Home’? You better read this before you decide to do so. An elderly British man was reportedly found dead inside a movie theatre that was playing the movie. The incident happened at a shopping mall in Thailand on July 3. According to a report by entertainment websitePopculture.com,the 77-year-old tourist was holidaying in Pattaya and had reportedly purchased a single ticket to the movie. Once the movie was over and the lights came on, a cinema goer who was seated beside the elderly man realized that he had ‘fainted’ and called emergency services. Others in the theatrebegan panicking at the situation. The police later confirmed that the man died at around 9pm. The man’s body was reportedly sent to a nearby hospital for an autopsy and the Thai British Embassy was notified.However, no details were provided about the man’s health record, but Thai police have reportedly ruled out foul play. This isn’t the first time that a moviegoer has died while watching this horror movie series. Back in 2016, a 65-year-old man died while watching ‘The Conjuring 2’. The man was also pronounced dead at the scene. Section 3: Studies 25% Read the report below,‘Scientists claim online game‘vaccinates’ players against fake news. p. 4 of 7 After applying the relevant strategies for assessing studies, determine if the proficient reasoner should accept the main inference drawn by researchers,‘the online game (Bad News) vaccinates players against fake news.”Be sure to provide sufficient support for your overall judgment. No additional research is required or recommended. (Word limit: 250 words max) Scientists claim online game‘vaccinates’ players against fake news PLAYING a video game for fifteen minutes makes people significantly better at being able to spot fake news, according to researchers. An online simulation aimed at increasing resistance to disinformation has been dubbed a “fakenewsvaccine” by academics.According to a study published on Tuesday by the University ofCambridge, playing the gamified simulation increases “psychological resistance” to fake news. In February last year, researchers launched the online game“Bad News.” The game –which takes around 15 minutes to complete–has since been played by thousands of people, with scientists analyzing data from 15,000 players. Playerscame across the game randomly or were referred to it by their friends or via social media. The aim of the game is to stoke fear and anger by manipulating news and social media, using techniques such as deploying Twitter bots, impersonating a trusted figure or organization, photo shopping evidence, and inciting conspiracy theories to attract followers. Players are challengedto spread disinformation without damaging their “credibility score.” Researchers asked participants before and after gameplay to rate the reliability of various headlines and tweets, allocating each player a random mixture of real and fake news.After playing the game for just 15 minutes, players became better at weeding out fake news from actual headlines.They found that users were 21% less likely to believe fake news aftercompleting the game. Playing “Bad News” made no difference to how users ranked real news,according to the study. Dr. Sander van der Linden, director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab and a co-author of Tuesday’s study, said in a press release that researchers wanted to expose people to a “weak dose” of the methods used in disinformation campaigns so people could understandhow they might be deceived.“This is a version of what psychologists call ‘inoculation theory’, with our game working like a psychological vaccination,” he said. “We find that just fifteen minutes of gameplay has a moderate effect, but a practically meaningful one when scaled across thousands of people worldwide, if we think in terms of building societal resistance to fakenews.” CNBC, CNBC, 25 Example is derived from:Taylor, Chloe. “Scientists Claim Online Game ‘Vaccinates’ Players against Fake News.” June 2019, www.cnbc.com/2019/06/25/scientists-claim-online-game-vaccinates-players-against-fake-news.html. Section 4: Integration 40% This question is designed to evaluate your ability to: determine which of the reasoning skills covered in the course are relevant to assessing an example; apply those skills effectively; and support your criticisms with appropriate and sufficient reasoning. Grading Criteria:Your grade will be based on your judgment in selecting the appropriate aspects of reasoning to discuss; your skill in applying relevant criteria; the strength of your own reasoning in supporting your assessment; your understanding of course concepts; your clarity of expression, coherence, and your organization. Clearly focused, concise answers are considered to be better than diffuse, excessively wordy answers. Directions:Read the news report,‘Nova Scotia’s top doctor takes heat over retweet dismissing chronic Lyme disease’.This report can be found on p. 6-7 of this exam. p. 5 of 7 Write a critique of the news report itself, and an assessment of the reasoning in the news report, in which you focus on weaknesses the proficient reasoner should note. In preparing your answer, keep in mind the points made in Lesson 10. In your assessment, discuss whichever of the following are relevant: credibility, news reporting, polling, inferences, studies and causal reasoning. The example will not call for discussion of every one of the aspects of reasoning we have studied. Discuss all and only those aspects of the reasoning that are relevant to the assessment of the example. Clearly identify your discussion of each aspect of reasoning examined (E.g. use the terms found in the lessons and text). Be sure to clearly identify in each case whatever claims or evidence you are discussing, and to offer adequate support for any criticisms you make. End your assessment by drawing a conclusion about whether or not you would accept the main claim(s) put forward on the basis of the report. In your conclusion you should also judge the overall strength of the report on the basis of your assessment. Your answer should be clearly written, well organized, and coherent. I suggest at least three drafts beforesettlingonyourfinaldraft. (Wordlimit:600wordsmax.) Nova Scotia’s top doctor takes heat over retweet dismissing chronic Lyme disease acebookTwitterMore14 p. 6 of 7 HALIFAX, N.S. -A recent retweet by the province’s top doctordismissing chronic Lyme disease as a condition based on pseudoscience and supported by a chronic Lyme cult, is being met withsharp criticism by one of Canada’s top tick experts. “There are a lot of people who are sick and belittling them publicly is trivializing their illness andtheir suffering,so it’s deeply unfortunate given all of the science work and medical work that needs to be done around Lyme disease,” saidVett Lloyd, a biology professor at Mount AllisonUniversity. She also leads the university’s Lyme Research Network. “Chronic Lyme disease isnot a cult. It’s not a myth.” On Wednesday, Dr. Robert Strang, the province’s chief medical officer of health, retweeted the anonymous tweet from an account named LymeScience. “As a former victim of the chronic Lyme cult, I feel it’s pretty important that they stop controlling the narrative around Lyme disease with their pseudoscience and misinformation,” read theopening line of the tweet. “They’ve been called a threat to public health for good reason. But it would help to remembernot everyone who falls for it is an idiot. The cult is well-funded and only growing. I’d hope mostpeople can see more needs to be done to stop this anti-science movement.” The Twitter account is linked to the website LymeScience.org, which offers a slew of information attempting to debunk chronic Lyme disease. But the website is not affiliated to any particular person or group. Strang told the Herald last September that the standard short-term antibiotic treatment for Lyme in the province is effective. He declined to say chronic Lyme exists and that bacteria could persist after a short course of antibiotics. But he said in some cases people have residual symptoms after being treated. Lloyd, a Lyme disease survivor, says there’sample evidence showing chronic Lyme is real and that short-term antibiotic treatment doesn’t always work. Lloyd was forced to travel to the U.S. toseek long-term antibiotic treatment after her standard treatment at home failed to work. “There’s quite a bit evidence that you can have bacterial persistence after short-term treatment. My experience was that the standard treatment was not enough to return me to health. “I required longer-term treatment to recover my health outside of Canada. I spent many years in Canada being diagnosed with everything under the sun and getting sicker and sicker but when Iwas treated for Lyme disease in the U.S. I got better in short order.” She says Strang should be working to bring people on both sides of the chronic Lyme debate together instead of furthering the divide by resorting to name-calling. Dr. Richard Dubocq, a Maine-based doctor currently treating 140 Lyme patients from Canada with long-term antibiotics, says about half of his Lyme patients live in Nova Scotia. Like Lloyd,he says he was shocked by Strang’s retweet, calling it irresponsible and an attempt to raise fear and paranoia. “I’m just surprised that he’s allowed to send this out on the airwaves because on so manydifferent levels it delivers false information,” said Dubocq. Dubocq follows treatment guidelines set down by the International Lyme and Associated p. 7 of 7 Diseases Society (ILADS). But those guidelines that recommend long-term antibiotic treatment in chronic or persistent cases of Lyme are not widely accepted by the North American medical community. Mainstream doctors, including in Nova Scotia, follow the standard Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for the treatment of Lyme. Donna Lugar, the Nova Scotia representative for the advocacy group the Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation, says hundreds, if not thousands, of people are struggling in Nova Scotia with a tick-borne disease. But in recent years several U.S. states have passed doctor-protection laws that fall in line with ILADS guidelines, allowing physicians to treat Lyme more aggressively with longer-term antibiotics. No such laws exist in Canada. “I recently attended the 19th annual ILADS conference in Chicago attended by over 1,000 health-care providers from around the word,” said Dubocq. “The quality of data was impeccable.” Health Minister Randy Delorey would not make himself available for an interview but in an emailstatement said people should consult the department’s official Twitter account for informationabout Lyme disease. He did not weigh in on Strang’s retweet or offer his stance on chronicLyme disease. “The department reminds Nova Scotians that our clinical guidelines for the testing and treatmentof Lyme disease are evidence-based and derived from national clinical guidelines,” saidDelorey. Donna Lugar, the Nova Scotia representative for the advocacy group the Canadian LymeDisease Foundation, said Strang’s retweet is inexcusable. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are struggling in this province with a chronic illness,” said Lugar. “What are we ill with, if not Lyme and/or other tick-borne diseases? Are we all mentally ill, as some doctors would suggest?” Example derived from: Rankin, Andrew. “Nova Scotia’s Top Doctor Takes Heat over Retweet Dismissing Chronic Lyme Disease: The Chronicle Herald.” Local | News | The Chronicle Herald , 29 Jan. 2019, www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/nova-scotias-top- doctor-takes-heat-over-retweet-dismissing-chronic-lyme-disease-279636/. End of Exam