Word Rebus

  • Word Rebus
  • A word rebus is an arrangement of letters and words that cryptically represent another word, phrase, or common saying.
  • Here’s an example:
    1. ME REPEAT
  • Solution to this rebus: Repeat after me.
  • Get it?
  • Types of Word Rebuses
  • According to fun-with-words.com, there are different types of word rebuses. You may use these types to create your own word rebus puzzles.
    1. Position
  • The example shown above uses the positioning of words. You can position two words to represent after, before, above, below, in and other such prepositions.
  • Here’s another example of a word rebus that uses positioning:
    1. CARRENATION
  • (See below for the solution to this and the other rebuses.)
  • Color
  • You can use text color to suggest a word.
  • Here are a couple of examples:
    1. BELT
    1. BERET
  • Pointing
  • You may point to a specific word in a collection of words by using an arrow or by underlining.
  • Here are a couple of examples in which a word is emphasized:
    1. AID ←
      AID
      AID
    2. AMENDMENT AMENDMENT
      AMENDMENT
      AMENDMENT
  • Style
  • You can change the style or size of the font to suggest a word.
  • Here are a couple of examples:
    1. ACTION
    1. I AM you
  • Direction
  • The direction in which the letters are printed (down or back, for example) may suggest missing words.
  • Here are a couple of examples:
    1. C
      O
      U
      N
      T
    2. DEEF
  • Partial letters or words
  • You may hide parts of letters or words to suggest missing words.
  • Here are a couple of examples:
  • Top of the word MORNING
    1. ECLI
  • Solutions
  • 1. Repeat after me 2. Reincarnation 3. Black belt 4. Green beret 5. First aid 6. Second amendment 7. Bold action 8. I am bigger than you 9. Countdown 10. Feedback 11. Top of the morning 12. Partial eclipse
  •  
  • Using Word Rebus Puzzles
  • If you attended our webinar series, you’d know that puzzles could be used in training in three different ways:
    1. To teach specific types of thinking skills such as creative thinking, lateral thinking, logical thinking, or critical thinking.
    2. To review a lecture or a handout by having participants solve a puzzle that summarizes the content.
    3. To explore interpersonal skills and concepts by incorporating an appropriate puzzle in a simulation game.
  • Here’s an example of a simulation game with an embedded word rebus puzzle:
  • Distribute a handout with these nine word rebus puzzles. Ask the participants to solve them independently. Tell them not to help one another.
  •  
  •  
  • ME QUIT
    NOON GOOD
    BOJACKX                     
    ARREST
    YOU ARE
    TIMING
    TIM ING
    DCTNRY
    THER
    DEILST
    TRN
  •  
  •  
  • Machine generated alternative text: ME QUIT ARREST YOU ARE THER NOON GOOD TIMING TIM ING DEILST BOJACKX DCTNRY TRN
  •  
  •  
  • After 3 minutes, ask everyone to stop and have each participant count the number of puzzles that she has solved.
  • Go through the handout, one item at a time, and ask the participants to shout out the answer. Usually one or more participants give the solution to each item. If there is a tough item that nobody has solved, skip it.
  • Count the total number of items solved by the group as a whole. Ask how many individuals have independently solved that many items.
  • The participants easily figure out the learning point: The group is smarter than any of its individual members.
  • (Solutions: Quit following me, good afternoon, Jack in the box, you are under arrest, split second timing, abridged dictionary, almost there, listed in alphabetical order, and no u-turn)

Obstacles summary

Obstacles to Critical Thinking
As every
instructor knows, it’s tough to teach the basics of critical thinking to
students who have never before been exposed to the subject. But their lack of
previous experience with the subject is only part of the challenge of getting
them to understand and appreciate critical thinking. Students are often not
merely clueless about critical thinking; they might have the deck stacked
against them at the outset because they harbor assumptions, prejudices, and
habits of mind that impede clear thinking. (The impediments thrown up by
logical fallacies are mostly a separate matter, taken up in Chapter 5.) The
purpose of this chapter, then, is to address some of these hindrances—to help
students become aware of common ways in which their thinking can run off the
tracks. The premise here is that awareness is half the battle.
So almost all of the exercises are meant to raise awareness.
The Field Problems—and your own similar projects or group discussions—should be
extremely useful in encouraging student introspection. They suggest some ways
that students can critique their own thinking or that of others without feeling
self-conscious or making others uncomfortable. Writing assignments can also be
put to work for the same reasons.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
  • Critical thinking takes place in a mental environment consisting
    of our experiences, thoughts, and feelings. Some elements in this inner
    environment can sabotage our efforts to think critically or at least make
    critical thinking more difficult. Fortunately, we can exert some control
    over these elements. With practice, we can detect errors in our thinking,
    restrain attitudes and feelings that can disrupt our reasoning, and
    achieve enough objectivity to make critical thinking possible.
  • The most common of these hindrances to critical thinking fall into
    two main categories: (1) Those obstacles that crop up because of how we think and (2)
    those that occur because of what we think. The
    first category is composed of psychological factors such as our fears,
    attitudes, motivations, and desires. The second category is made up of
    certain philosophical beliefs.
Psychological Obstacles
  • None of us is immune to the psychological obstacles. Among them
    are the products of egocentric thinking. We may accept a claim solely
    because it advances our interests or just because it helps us save face.
    To overcome these pressures, we must (1) be aware of strong emotions that
    can warp our thinking, (2) be alert to ways that critical thinking can be
    undermined, and (3) ensure that we take into account all relevant factors
    when we evaluate a claim.
  • The first category of hindrances also includes those that arise
    because of group pressure. These obstacles include conformist pressures
    from groups that we belong to and ethnocentric urges to think that our
    group is superior to others. The best defense against group pressure is to
    proportion our beliefs according to the strength of reasons.
Philosophical Obstacles

  • We may also have certain core beliefs that can undermine critical
    thinking (the second category of hindrances). Subjective relativism is the
    view that truth depends solely on what someone believes¾a notion that may
    make critical thinking look superfluous. But subjective relativism leads
    to some strange consequences. For example, if the doctrine were true, each
    of us would be infallible. Also, subjective relativism has a logical
    problem¾it’s
    self-defeating. Its truth implies its falsity. There are no good reasons
    to accept this form of relativism.
  • Social relativism is the view that truth is relative to societies¾a claim that would
    also seem to make critical thinking unnecessary. But this notion is
    undermined by the same kinds of problems that plague subjective
    relativism.
  • Philosophical skepticism is the doctrine that we know much less
    than we think we do. One form of philosophical skepticism says that we
    cannot know anything unless the belief is beyond all possible doubt. But
    this is not a plausible criterion for knowledge. To be knowledge, claims
    need not be beyond all possible doubt, but beyond all reasonable doubt

PCT 5e C06 – DEDUCTIVE REASONING – PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC CHAPTER SUMMARY

PCT 5e C6 – DEDUCTIVE REASONING – PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Connectives and Truth Values
  • In propositional logic we use symbols to stand for the
    relationships between statements—that is, to indicate the form of an
    argument. These relationships are made possible by logical connectives
    such as conjunction (and), disjunction (or), negation (not), and
    conditional (If…then…). Connectives are used in compound statements, each
    of which is composed of at least two simple statements. A statement is a
    sentence that can be either true or false.
  • To indicate the possible truth values of statements and arguments,
    we can construct truth tables, a graphic way of displaying all the truth
    value possibilities.
  • A conjunction is false if at least one of its statement components
    (conjuncts) is false. A disjunction is still true even if one of its
    component statements (disjuncts) is false. A negation is the denial of a
    statement. The negation of any statement changes the statement’s truth
    value to its contradictory (false to true and true to false). A
    conditional statement is false in only one situation—when the antecedent
    is true and the consequent is false.
Checking for Validity
  • The use of truth tables to determine the validity of an argument
    is based on the fact that it’s impossible for a valid argument to have
    true premises and a false conclusion. A basic truth table consists of two
    or more guide columns listing all the truth value possibilities, followed
    by a column for each premise and the conclusion. We can add other columns
    to help us determine the truth values of components of the argument.
  • You can check the validity of arguments not only with truth tables
    but also with the short method. In this procedure we try to discover if
    there is a way to make the conclusion false and the premises true by
    assigning various truth values to the argument’s components.
Proof of Validity
  • The method
    of proof
    is a way to confirm the validity of an argument by deducing its conclusion
    from its premises using simple, valid argument forms. Most valid complex
    arguments consist of several of these valid sub-arguments (most of which
    you may already know). Determining the validity of the larger argument
    then is a matter of moving step by step from premises to conclusion,
    identifying the valid, component arguments along the way.
  • The method of proof
    uses nine rules of inference and nine rules of replacement. By properly
    applying them, you can confirm an argument’s validity.