Page 1 of 10

Faculty Faculty of Business Programme Title BBA and BBACC

BBA YR 1 1802,BBA YR2 1801E,BBA
Unit Title CRT3201 Critical Thinking Batch Code YR2 1802E, BBACC YR1 1802, BBA YR1
1501E
Noorliana Hj Rias April 2019 – Sept 2019 (Semester
Unit Lecturer Term / Semester
Mr SenthilKumar 2, 4 and 5)
Unit Vetters Nuh Programme Leader Gwendoline William
Assessment Type Individual Assignment 1 Assessment Weightage 15%
Release Date 20th May 2019 Submission Date 29th June 2019
Attempt First Attempt Re-sit
Coursework Policies
1. All coursework submitted must include a copy of the full brief given by the Lecturer. All source material must be cited in
the text and a full bibliography of source material (including author, title, publisher and date) listed at the end of the
submission.
2. All work must be submitted in the mode instructed by the Lecturer.
3. Work submitted under the student’s name must only be the work of that student. All information sources must be
acknowledged. Plagiarism is a serious offence and will render offenders liable to disciplinary action as set out in the rules
and regulation of the institution.
4. Students MUST keep a copy of all submitted work for reference purposes prior to the original being handed in and
returned. This will provide proof that the work was completed, in the event that the work goes astray.
5. Whenever a candidate submits work after approved deadline without an authorised extension, a “F” grade will be
awarded. Lecturer may comment on the quality of the work for learning purposes.
6. Requests for extensions of submission deadlines must be made in writing prior to the submission deadline to the Lecturer
and must be supported by documentary evidence.

Student Full Name

IC Number Contact No:
Batch Code
STUDENT DECLARATION
I, ……………………………………………………………………............. hereby certify that this assignment is my own
work and where materials have been used from other resources, they have been properly acknowledged. I also
understand I will face the possibility of failing the module if the contents of this assignment are found to be
plagiarized.

Signature: ………………………………………………… Date: …………………………………………………

RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (LECTURER)

Received By ………………………………………………… Date…………………………….Time……………….

Remarks
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(Tear Here)
RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (STUDENT)

Received By ………………………………………………… Date…………………………….Time……………….

Remarks
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

GRADING CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS WORKS

2
 Grades Pointer Justification
Marks

80 – 100 A 4.00
Pass with Distinction
75 – 79 A- 3.67
70 – 74 B+ 3.33
65 – 69 B 3.00 Pass with Merit
60 – 64 B- 2.67
55 – 59 C+ 2.33
50 – 54 C 2.00
Pass
45 – 49 C- 1.67
40 – 44 D 1.00
00 – 39 F 0.00 Fail
EXP - Exempted
PC 1.00 Pass Conceded
X 0.00 Pending Supplementary Assessment
PX 1.00 Passed with Supplementary Assessment
Def - Deferred
DNS 0.00 Did Not Submit

ASSIGNMENT BRIEF / DESCRIPTION

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
In this assignment, Students will be able to:

1. Gain a solid and practical foundation to accurately interpret statements that make up
arguments.
2. Expose to various scenario where students can build upon on their comprehension skills
(identify issue, distinguish between clarification, argument, persuasion, identify
difference between conclusions, and the arguments)

3
 3. Acquire critical thinking skills (distinguish between inductive and deductive reasoning,
between logic and truth, determine whether a consideration is relevant, recognize
questionable assumption and missing information, evaluate credibility of statements
and sources, and identify ambiguity, vagueness, and common fallacies in reasoning)

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of doing this assignment, Students will be able to:

1. Explain an issue or problem comprehensively.

2. Analyze contents when presenting a position or an issue or problem
3. Draw logical conclusions and implications from the analysis of an issue or problem
4. Identify relevant arguments (claims, reasons, pro and cons)
5. Analyze and evaluate alternative points of view
6. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reason lead

SCENARIO AND INSTRUCTION

In this assignment, you are required to write a critical analysis paper, where you analyze and
critically evaluate another person’s argument. The argument must be coming from local
newspapers (Borneo Bulletin or Media Permata). The original article must be included/attached
in the final report.

The goal is two-fold:

1) Identify and explain the argument that the author is making, and
2) Provide your own argument about that argument.

Your essay should include the following four elements.

Introduction: Identify the title, author, and context of the essay you are critically evaluating.
Summarize very briefly the writer’s basic position and state in general terms your overall
evaluation of the argument.

Argument summary: Standardize the writer’s argument using the five-step method.

Critical evaluation: Evaluate the argument; that is, say whether you think the argument is a
good, convincing argument and give reasons to support your view. You may find it helpful to
keep in mind the following general guidelines on evaluating arguments:
• Are the premises true? (Note: You may need to do some research to make an informed
judgment on this issue.)
• Is the reasoning good? Is the argument deductively valid or inductively strong?
• Does the arguer commit any logical fallacies?
4
 • Does the writer express his or her points clearly and precisely?
• Are the arguer’s claims logically consistent?
• Is the argument complete? Are all relevant evidence taken into account?
• Is the argument fair? Is the arguer fair in his or her presentation of the evidence and
treatment of opposing arguments and views?
• Imprecise languages used?
• Euphemism used?

Conclusion: Briefly restate the key points of your critical response to reinforce them in the
reader’s mind. If possible, end with a strong concluding line (e.g., an apt quotation) that nicely
sums up your response or puts the issue in a larger context.

Note:
1. Each student is required to write and attach in the final report, a one-page reflection page
on learning highlighting new knowledge gained in completing the assignment, obstacles
faced and the ways to overcome the obstacles.
2. Formatting, writing organisation will be assess.

DELIVERABLES

The deliverables for this assignment will be:

1. The documentation or report addressing the issue as highlighted in the Scenario and
Instruction section above.
2. The actual article used for the argument analysis.

SUBMISSION CRITERIA
1. Documentation/report, please use:
o Word processor on A4 size
o Times New Roman, or Arial with font size of 12
o 1.5-line spacing
o The report should be between 1000 – 1500 words
o Use Harvard Referencing style
o Header will contain your name, assessment type (assignment), module code and
title, as we as the term (April 2019 – Sept 2019). Right-aligned.
o Footer will contain the page number using this format – Page pageNum of
TotalPageNum

2. Together with the report / documentation, please provide softcopy of all the works done
and email the softcopy of your work (both Word and PDF formats) to

5
 kumar.s@igsbrunei.edu.bn and upload it to the lms.kolejigs.com.bn on the deadline
specified in your assignment brief.

REFERENCES

1. Bassham, G., William, I., Nardone, H., Wallace, J. (2010). Critical Thinking: A Student
Perception. New York Citi, NY:Mc-Graw Hill.
2. Moore, B., Parker, R. (2009). Critical Thinking 9th Edition. New York Citi, NY:Mc-
Graw Hill.
3. Waller, B. ( 2012), Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
Pearson Education, Inc.

PLAGIARISM MARKS DEDUCTION

Plagiarism Marks Deduction

Plagiarism is an academic dishonesty. Submit your work in original.
If plagiarism is detected, lecturer must fill up the (FM004) Suspected Plagiarism Report Form.
If the student found guilty the marks would be deducted as follows:

% Similarity (From) % Similarity (To) % of Mark Deduction Level

30.00 50 (25-50) 1

50.01 70 (51-70) 2

70.01 100 (71-100) 3

6
 Appendix 1 – Rubric

Total Points
No. Criteria 5 points 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 point Weightage

Introduction Well-developed Introduction creates Introduction adequately Background details Details are
introduction that interest and provide explains the are a random, irrelevant
grabs the readers’ enough details. background, but may unclear, collection collection of
interest and lack details. of information. information.
1 2 / 10
continues to engage Thesis states the position.
until the thesis Thesis state the topic, Thesis is vague and Thesis statement
statement. but key elements are unclear. is not relevant.
missing.
Main conclusion, and Main conclusion, more Main conclusion, less Main conclusion Main conclusion,
Argument all premises as well than half of the premises than half of the identified, but very and premises are
summary as subconclusions (if and subconclusions (if premises and few (1-2) premises wrongly
any) offered in any) offered in support of subconclusions (if any) were identified. identified
support of the main the main conclusion, are offered in support of
conclusion are all clearly identified. the main conclusion,
clearly identified. are identified. There are some
materials in the
All materials in the There are some materials There are some arguments that are
arguments are in the arguments that are materials in the not relevant.
2 relevant. not relevant. arguments that are not 6 / 30
relevant.

The arguments were The arguments were

numbered in correct numbered in correct The arguments were
logical order logical order numbered in correct The arguments
(premises are placed logical order were not numbered
above the in correct logical
conclusions they are order
intended to support)

7
 Critical Argument is Argument is supported by Argument is supported Evidence is Argument is
evaluation / thoroughly supported relevant evidence, by limited evidence that insufficient, based on little or
evidence and by strong, specific thought not always the is only occasionally misconstrued or no evidence
support and appropriate strongest or specific relevant. misrepresented.
evidence. quotations. Connections
3 6 / 30
Connections between Unclear between evidence
Evidence is clearly Analysis of evidence argument and evidence connections and argument are
introduced, analyzed needs further are somewhat unclear between evidence absent / incorrect
and connected to the development and argument
argument.
Writing Overall, writing was Overall, writing was Overall, writing was Overall, writing Overall, writing
clear, succinct, and clear, and reflects some organized but lacked was disorganized was disorganized
reflects the depth of depth of student thinking/ some polish, and might and did not reflect and did not
student thinking/ analysis. not convey the true an acceptable reflect any
analysis. depth of student understanding of understanding of
4 2 / 10
understanding of the the topic. the topic.
Paper is organized Paper is organized topic.
logically with logically with adequate
adequate transitions transitions between
between sections. sections.
Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion effectively Conclusion somewhat Conclusion is not Conclusion is
effectively wraps up summarizes the topic but effective but did not effective at all and not relevant.
and summarizes the did not re-stresses the summarizes and did not did not re-stresses
5 topics, and re- importance of the thesis re-stresses the the importance of 2 / 10
stresses the importance of the thesis the thesis
importance of the
thesis
6 Language Almost entirely free May contain a few Several (more than 5 Contains many Pervasive 1 /5
and Citation of spelling, grammar spelling (less than 5), but less than 10) (more than 10) spelling,
and punctuation grammar and punctuation spelling, grammar and spelling, grammar grammar or
errors. errors, but they don’t punctuation errors, that and punctuation punctuation
impede understanding. distract the reader errors, that distract errors.
All sources are cited the reader
correctly and Most sources are cited Minor citation errors
completely correctly and completely Incomplete Missing citations
8
 citations

Reflection Complete and Complete but not Incomplete reflection Incomplete Submitted
page thorough explanation thorough explanation (all (only 2 elements reflection (only 1 reflection page
(new knowledge three elements were included with basic element included but missing all
gained highlighted, included with basic explanation) with basic the three
7 1 /5
obstacles indicated explanation) explanation) elements required
and the solutions
were given)

GRAND TOTAL (100%)

FINAL WEIGHTAGE (15%)

9
This section is to be filled up when there is a difference in the award of marks by Unit
Lecturer (first marker) and the Second Marker
Mark given by Unit Lecturer Remarks:
(First Marker)

Mark given by Vetter Remarks:

(Second Marker)

Mark decided by the Head of Faculty Remarks:

(Third Marker)

10