DOCSLIB.ORG

Privacycon 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11 9:00 A.M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Privacycon 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11 9:00 A.M 1 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 2 3 4 PRIVACYCON 5 6 7 8 9 10 TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2020 11 9:00 A.M. 12 13 14 VIRTUAL EVENT 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 PrivacyCon 7/21/2020 1 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 2 I N D E X 3 PAGE: 4 Welcome 3 5 6 Opening Remarks 6 7 8 Session 1: Health Apps 12 9 10 Session 2: Bias in AI Algorithms 74 11 12 Session 3: The Internet of Things 110 13 14 Session 4: Specific Technologies: 15 Cameras/Smart Speakers/Apps 156 16 17 Session 5: International Privacy 202 18 19 Session 6: Miscellaneous Privacy/Security 257 20 21 Closing Remarks 311 22 23 24 25 For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 3 PrivacyCon 7/21/2020 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 WELCOME REMARKS BY ELISA JILLSON 3 MS. JILLSON: Good morning. On behalf of my 4 colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission, I'm happy 5 to welcome you to our fifth annual PrivacyCon. My 6 name is Elisa Jillson. I'm an attorney in the 7 Division of Privacy and Identity Protection. My co- 8 organizer for today's event is Jamie Hine, a senior 9 attorney in the same division. 10 Before we get started with our program, I 11 need to review a few administrative details. We're 12 happy to welcome you via the webcast. We will make 13 the webcast and the other workshop materials available 14 online to create a lasting record for everyone 15 interested in these issues. That will include links 16 to the research discussed and, in a few weeks, a 17 written transcript of today's event. 18 As you may know, PrivacyCon is typically an 19 in-person event. If there are technological issues 20 with this webcast, we will work to address them 21 promptly and we ask in advance for your patience if 22 any such issues arise. 23 We will be leaving time at the end of each 24 panel to take questions from the audience. You can 25 email your questions to [email protected]. If you For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 4 PrivacyCon 7/21/2020 1 would like to ask a question by Twitter, you can tweet 2 your question using @FTC and #PrivacyCon20. Please 3 understand that we may not be able to get to all of 4 the questions. 5 Lastly, I wanted to thank all of the 6 researchers and the panelists for their participation 7 in today's event. We are very grateful for your work 8 in this important area. 9 This program would not be possible without 10 the great work done by many of our FTC colleagues. We 11 would like to thank our colleagues that assisted us in 12 reviewing all of the research submissions, including 13 Monique Einhorn and Patrick McAlvanah. We would also 14 like to thank those moderating panels today, including 15 Ellen Connelly, Phoebe Rouge, Daniel Wood, and Lerone 16 Banks. 17 Finally, this conference would not be 18 possible without the help of Kristal Peters, Aryssa 19 Henderson, James Murray, and Bruce Jennings; 20 paralegals, Leah Singleton and Alex Iglesias; June 21 Chang from our Division of Consumer and Business 22 Education; Somethea Mam from the FTC media team; 23 Juliana Henderson and Nicole Drayton in our Office of 24 Public Affairs; and Shawn Whitaker at Open Exchange. 25 Thank you all. For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 5 PrivacyCon 7/21/2020 1 It is now my honor to welcome the Director 2 of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal 3 Trade Commission, Andrew Smith. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 6 PrivacyCon 7/21/2020 1 OPENING REMARKS BY DIRECTOR ANDREW SMITH 2 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Elisa. 3 Welcome to PrivacyCon 2020 and thank you all 4 for being here virtually. This is the fifth year that 5 we've held PrivacyCon, which brings together 6 researchers from around the country and around the 7 world to discuss cutting-edge issues related to 8 consumer privacy and security. I know that you will 9 all miss the opportunity to see each other face to 10 face, but the most important feature of PrivacyCon 11 remains the same, the spotlight on topnotch research 12 from a distinguished group of academics, physicians, 13 economists, and other practitioners. 14 Over the past few years, PrivacyCon has been 15 critical in keeping the FTC and other stakeholders up 16 to date on emerging technologies and related data and 17 privacy security risks. PrivacyCon informs all of the 18 work that we do here at the FTC, whether it be 19 enforcement, business or consumer education or 20 rulemaking and policy efforts. 21 In light of that influence, I'll start with 22 a few words about what the FTC has been doing to 23 protect consumers' privacy since the last PrivacyCon. 24 Vigorous enforcement is at the heart of what the FTC 25 does. And in the past year, we've brought privacy and For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 7 PrivacyCon 7/21/2020 1 security cases under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 2 the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, the 3 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Safeguards Rule, and our own FTC 4 Act. 5 Shortly after last year's PrivacyCon, we 6 announced settlements with Facebook, Equifax, and 7 YouTube last year that shattered prior records for 8 civil penalties or consumer redress for privacy and 9 security violations. These settlements also required 10 important structural changes with respect to how these 11 companies treat consumers' or children's information. 12 More recently, we brought a trio of cases 13 against operators of mobile apps that failed to 14 protect the privacy of children's information or 15 misled consumers about compliance with children's 16 privacy laws, the stalking app, Retina-X, the Swiss 17 mobile gaming company Miniclip, and the kid's app 18 purveyor HyperBeard. 19 In recent data security cases, like Tapplock 20 and InfoTrax, we've put a stop to misrepresentations 21 about smart lock security and also to the failure to 22 safeguard consumers' sensitive personal information. 23 In privacy cases like Unrollme and Mount 24 Diablo, we've challenged companies that made empty 25 promises about keeping sensitive information, like For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 8 PrivacyCon 7/21/2020 1 financial information and emails, away from prying 2 eyes. 3 We have also focused on educating business 4 and consumers about data-related risks. For example, 5 in recent months, we've issued guidance to businesses 6 on how to develop coronavirus-related technologies 7 that take privacy into account. We've offered advice 8 on secure cloud computing and tips for using 9 artificial intelligence and algorithms. 10 For consumers, we've put out guidance on how 11 to safely use videoconferencing services and how to 12 protect children's privacy while doing remote 13 learning. 14 Rather than talking about past 15 accomplishments, today's conversation needs to be 16 focused on what the FTC should be doing going forward. 17 Panelists today will discuss technologies ranging from 18 mobile health and disaster apps to interconnected 19 devices, such as smart speakers and cameras, to online 20 ad delivery systems. Economists will report on their 21 studies abroad to gauge the effects of privacy 22 legislation in Europe. And researchers will describe 23 mechanisms for consumer choice and how consumers 24 protect themselves from identity theft. 25 The papers presented today will highlight For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 9 PrivacyCon 7/21/2020 1 technological developments that could be a boon to 2 consumers, but that also present risks to privacy, 3 security, and, in at least one instance, equal 4 opportunity. 5 One final note before I turn the discussion 6 over to our first panel: In our call for research 7 papers, we specifically asked for research on mobile 8 health apps, and the first panel of the day will be 9 devoted to that important topic. Why health apps? 10 Industry reports show that consumers are increasingly 11 using a variety of health-related apps, including 12 fitness trackers, mood journals, smoking cessation or 13 addiction aids, heart rate or sleep monitors, 14 fertility trackers, diet guides, and more. Use of 15 contact-tracing apps during the COVID-19 pandemic 16 could add a whole new dimension to that trend. 17 Earlier this year, the Department of Health 18 and Human Services issued rules that will make it 19 easier for consumers to access medical records through 20 the app of their choice. This expanded access to 21 health information could be an enormous benefit to 22 consumers. But as we all know, wherever data flows 23 increase, the opportunity for data compromise 24 increases as well. 25 We, here at the FTC, have been active on For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 10 PrivacyCon 7/21/2020 1 health privacy issues, with cases like Practice 2 Fusion, PaymentsMD, and Henry Schein.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center
    Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center Ad hominem (Argument to the person): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We would take her position on child abuse more seriously if she weren’t so rude to the press. Ad populum appeal (appeal to the public): Draws on whatever people value such as nationality, religion, family. A vote for Joe Smith is a vote for the flag. Alleged certainty: Presents something as certain that is open to debate. Everyone knows that… Obviously, It is obvious that… Clearly, It is common knowledge that… Certainly, Ambiguity and equivocation: Statements that can be interpreted in more than one way. Q: Is she doing a good job? A: She is performing as expected. Appeal to fear: Uses scare tactics instead of legitimate evidence. Anyone who stages a protest against the government must be a terrorist; therefore, we must outlaw protests. Appeal to ignorance: Tries to make an incorrect argument based on the claim never having been proven false. Because no one has proven that food X does not cause cancer, we can assume that it is safe. Appeal to pity: Attempts to arouse sympathy rather than persuade with substantial evidence. He embezzled a million dollars, but his wife had just died and his child needed surgery. Begging the question/Circular Logic: Proof simply offers another version of the question itself. Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe. Card stacking: Ignores evidence from the one side while mounting evidence in favor of the other side. Users of hearty glue say that it works great! (What is missing: How many users? Great compared to what?) I should be allowed to go to the party because I did my math homework, I have a ride there and back, and it’s at my friend Jim’s house.
    [Show full text]
  • 35 Fallacies
    THIRTY-TWO COMMON FALLACIES EXPLAINED L. VAN WARREN Introduction If you watch TV, engage in debate, logic, or politics you have encountered the fallacies of: Bandwagon – "Everybody is doing it". Ad Hominum – "Attack the person instead of the argument". Celebrity – "The person is famous, it must be true". If you have studied how magicians ply their trade, you may be familiar with: Sleight - The use of dexterity or cunning, esp. to deceive. Feint - Make a deceptive or distracting movement. Misdirection - To direct wrongly. Deception - To cause to believe what is not true; mislead. Fallacious systems of reasoning pervade marketing, advertising and sales. "Get Rich Quick", phone card & real estate scams, pyramid schemes, chain letters, the list goes on. Because fallacy is common, you might want to recognize them. There is no world as vulnerable to fallacy as the religious world. Because there is no direct measure of whether a statement is factual, best practices of reasoning are replaced be replaced by "logical drift". Those who are political or religious should be aware of their vulnerability to, and exportation of, fallacy. The film, "Roshomon", by the Japanese director Akira Kurisawa, is an excellent study in fallacy. List of Fallacies BLACK-AND-WHITE Classifying a middle point between extremes as one of the extremes. Example: "You are either a conservative or a liberal" AD BACULUM Using force to gain acceptance of the argument. Example: "Convert or Perish" AD HOMINEM Attacking the person instead of their argument. Example: "John is inferior, he has blue eyes" AD IGNORANTIAM Arguing something is true because it hasn't been proven false.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacies Are Deceptive Errors of Thinking
    Fallacies are deceptive errors of thinking. A good argument should: 1. be deductively valid (or inductively strong) and have all true premises; 2. have its validity and truth-of-premises be as evident as possible to the parties involved; 3. be clearly stated (using understandable language and making clear what the premises and conclusion are); 4. avoid circularity, ambiguity, and emotional language; and 5. be relevant to the issue at hand. LogiCola R Pages 51–60 List of fallacies Circular (question begging): Assuming the truth of what has to be proved – or using A to prove B and then B to prove A. Ambiguous: Changing the meaning of a term or phrase within the argument. Appeal to emotion: Stirring up emotions instead of arguing in a logical manner. Beside the point: Arguing for a conclusion irrelevant to the issue at hand. Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s views. LogiCola R Pages 51–60 Appeal to the crowd: Arguing that a view must be true because most people believe it. Opposition: Arguing that a view must be false because our opponents believe it. Genetic fallacy: Arguing that your view must be false because we can explain why you hold it. Appeal to ignorance: Arguing that a view must be false because no one has proved it. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Arguing that, since A happened after B, thus A was caused by B. Part-whole: Arguing that what applies to the parts must apply to the whole – or vice versa. LogiCola R Pages 51–60 Appeal to authority: Appealing in an improper way to expert opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents
    False dilemma Wikipedia Contents 1 False dilemma 1 1.1 Examples ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Morton's fork ......................................... 1 1.1.2 False choice .......................................... 2 1.1.3 Black-and-white thinking ................................... 2 1.2 See also ................................................ 2 1.3 References ............................................... 3 1.4 External links ............................................. 3 2 Affirmative action 4 2.1 Origins ................................................. 4 2.2 Women ................................................ 4 2.3 Quotas ................................................. 5 2.4 National approaches .......................................... 5 2.4.1 Africa ............................................ 5 2.4.2 Asia .............................................. 7 2.4.3 Europe ............................................ 8 2.4.4 North America ........................................ 10 2.4.5 Oceania ............................................ 11 2.4.6 South America ........................................ 11 2.5 International organizations ...................................... 11 2.5.1 United Nations ........................................ 12 2.6 Support ................................................ 12 2.6.1 Polls .............................................. 12 2.7 Criticism ............................................... 12 2.7.1 Mismatching ......................................... 13 2.8 See also
    [Show full text]
  • Some Common Fallacies of Argument Evading the Issue: You Avoid the Central Point of an Argument, Instead Drawing Attention to a Minor (Or Side) Issue
    Some Common Fallacies of Argument Evading the Issue: You avoid the central point of an argument, instead drawing attention to a minor (or side) issue. ex. You've put through a proposal that will cut overall loan benefits for students and drastically raise interest rates, but then you focus on how the system will be set up to process loan applications for students more quickly. Ad hominem: Here you attack a person's character, physical appearance, or personal habits instead of addressing the central issues of an argument. You focus on the person's personality, rather than on his/her ideas, evidence, or arguments. This type of attack sometimes comes in the form of character assassination (especially in politics). You must be sure that character is, in fact, a relevant issue. ex. How can we elect John Smith as the new CEO of our department store when he has been through 4 messy divorces due to his infidelity? Ad populum: This type of argument uses illegitimate emotional appeal, drawing on people's emotions, prejudices, and stereotypes. The emotion evoked here is not supported by sufficient, reliable, and trustworthy sources. Ex. We shouldn't develop our shopping mall here in East Vancouver because there is a rather large immigrant population in the area. There will be too much loitering, shoplifting, crime, and drug use. Complex or Loaded Question: Offers only two options to answer a question that may require a more complex answer. Such questions are worded so that any answer will implicate an opponent. Ex. At what point did you stop cheating on your wife? Setting up a Straw Person: Here you address the weakest point of an opponent's argument, instead of focusing on a main issue.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big Lie” Feedback Responses
    2016 Two More Chains Fall Issue “The Big Lie” Feedback Responses Do you agree or disagree Please elaborate on why you What’s the next step? How do we bring opposing with “The Big Lie” agree or disagree. views together? concepts? Why? 1. (Respondent selected “Other” for job position.) [No Input] Learn how to read wildfires. Agree. Underestimating potential leads to Based on “Personal Experience.” accidents. 2. Firefighter I have over 33 years’ experience working We need to discuss revising the entry level training programs to Agree. for All Risk Fire Departments in California include this information and focus more on the intent of the Fire Based on “Personal Experience.” including CAL FIRE. Qualified as DIVS, Orders (not just memorizing) what they really mean—and how to SOFR, STCR, FAL1 to name a few. mitigate risk to acceptable levels before we engage. Through this experience and studies I What happened to S-133 and S-134? Have these course been have long ago formed the following eliminated and if so why? opinions: With the risk management process, we seek to mitigate risk, but cannot always remove risk. Therefore, manage the risk and decide if the mitigations are acceptable before we engage. I also agree that there is a culture to memorize and recognize the Standard Fire Orders, but in practice the culture does not fully support following the orders or complying with the intent of the orders. With this type of culture, we often set ourselves up for the opportunity to experience catastrophic results. 1 Do you agree or disagree Please elaborate on why you What’s the next step? How do we bring opposing with “The Big Lie” agree or disagree.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5: Informal Fallacies II
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine Chapter 5: Informal Fallacies II Reasoning is the best guide we have to the truth....Those who offer alternatives to reason are either mere hucksters, mere claimants to the throne, or there's a case to be made for them; and of course, that is an appeal to reason. Michael Scriven, Reasoning Why don’t you ever see a headline, “Psychic wins lottery”? Internet Joke News Item, June 16, 2010: A six story statue of Jesus in Monroe city, Ohio was struck by lightning and destroyed. An adult book store across the street was untouched. Introduction In the last chapter we examined one of the major causes of poor reasoning, getting off track and not focusing on the issues related to a conclusion. In our general discussion of arguments (Chapters 1-3), however, we saw that arguments can be weak in two other ways: 1. In deductive reasoning, arguments can be valid, but have false or questionable premises, or in both deductive and inductive reasoning, arguments may involve language tricks that mislead us into presuming evidence is being offered in the premises when it is not. 2. In weak inductive arguments, arguments can have true and relevant premises but those premises can be insufficient to justify a conclusion as a reliable guide to the future. Fallacies that use deductive valid reasoning, but have premises that are questionable or are unfair in some sense in the truth claims they make, we will call fallacies of questionable premise. As a subset of fallacies of questionable premise, fallacies that use tricks in the way the premises are presented, such that there is a danger of presuming evidence has been offered when it has not, we will call fallacies of presumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Proof Release 3.18.4
    Logic and Proof Release 3.18.4 Jeremy Avigad, Robert Y. Lewis, and Floris van Doorn Sep 10, 2021 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Mathematical Proof ............................................ 1 1.2 Symbolic Logic .............................................. 2 1.3 Interactive Theorem Proving ....................................... 4 1.4 The Semantic Point of View ....................................... 5 1.5 Goals Summarized ............................................ 6 1.6 About this Textbook ........................................... 6 2 Propositional Logic 7 2.1 A Puzzle ................................................. 7 2.2 A Solution ................................................ 7 2.3 Rules of Inference ............................................ 8 2.4 The Language of Propositional Logic ................................... 15 2.5 Exercises ................................................. 16 3 Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic 17 3.1 Derivations in Natural Deduction ..................................... 17 3.2 Examples ................................................. 19 3.3 Forward and Backward Reasoning .................................... 20 3.4 Reasoning by Cases ............................................ 22 3.5 Some Logical Identities .......................................... 23 3.6 Exercises ................................................. 24 4 Propositional Logic in Lean 25 4.1 Expressions for Propositions and Proofs ................................. 25 4.2 More commands ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Read in Full (PDF File)
    THE HOLY GRAIL: IN PURSUIT OF THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL Michael Watts Institute of International Studies University of California, Berkeley “[T]here is too little emphasis ... on what it means to do independent research” -William Bowen and Neil Rudenstein In Pursuit of the Ph.D. 1992 Introduction One of the great curiosities of academia is that the art of writing a research proposal–arguably one of the most difficult and demanding tasks confronting any research student–is so weakly institutionalized within graduate programs. The same, incidentally, might be said of fieldwork, whether the site is a village in northern Uganda or an archive in Pittsburgh. My experience is that fieldwork has all of the aura (and anxiety) of any rite of passage. But with a difference. It is a Darwinian learning-by- doing ordeal for which there is presumed to be no body of preparatory knowledge that can be passed on in advance; those that succeed return, and those that don’t are never seen again. It is perhaps for such reasons that Bowen and Rudenstein in their important book In Pursuit of the Ph.D. see the period between the end of coursework and the engagement of a dissertation topic as one of the most fraught and difficult in graduate formation. The selection of a topic they say is ‘a formidable task’, and students must be–but in practice rarely are in the social sciences and the humanities–encouraged to engage with their dissertation project in their first and second years. All of this is to say that the transition–another rite of passage–from course work to dissertation project is often paralyzing (“How exactly am I going to operationalize my crypto-Foucauldian study of the micro-physics of political power in San Francsico’s credit unions”?) and typically a source of bewilderment, anxiety and yes, even depression.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama State University Department of Languages and Literatures
    ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES COURSE SYLLABUS PHILOSOPHY 201 LOGICAL REASONING (PHL 201) (Revised 10/20/04 – Dr. Daniel Keller.) I. Faculty Listing: PHL 201: Logical Reasoning (3 credit hours) II. Description: To satisfactorily complete the course, a student must earn a grade of “C.” The course is designed to help students assess information and arguments and to improve their ability to reason in a clear and logical way. The course concentrates specifically on helping students learn some of the various uses of languages, understand how different kinds of inferences are drawn, and learn to recognize fallacies of ambiguity, presumption, and relevance. III. Purpose: Many students do not reason soundly and do not distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. Hence, the aim of this course is to give students experience in learning to recognize and evaluate arguments; it also aims at teaching them to construct arguments that are reasonable and defensible. It is designed as a basic course to improve the reasoning skills of students. After completing this course successfully, students should show improvements in reading comprehension, writing, and test- taking skills. IV. Course Objectives: 1. Comprehend concepts 1-9 on the attached list. a) Define each concept b) Identify the meaning of each concept as it applies to logic. 2. Comprehend how these concepts function in logical reasoning. a) Given examples from the text of each concept, correctly identify the concept. b) Given new examples of each concept, correctly identify the concept. 3. Comprehend concepts 10-16 on the attached list. a) Define the concepts b) Identify the meaning of the concept as it applies to logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Slanters and Pseudo-Reasoning Cheat Sheet
    You all better get an ‘A’ now that you can cheat sheet Arguments An argument is valid (or logical) if the conclusion is supported by the premises An argument is deductively valid if the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion (i.e. if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true) An argument is inductively valid (or strong) if the truth of the premises make the conclusion more likely to be true than false. An argument is well-founded if the premises are true or likely to be true. An argument is sound if the premises are true and the argument is deductively valid An argument is cogent if the premises are well-founded and the argument is strong. Truth-Functional Logic ~P: P is not true (‘not P’) P & Q: P and Q are both true (‘P and Q’) P ∨ Q: either P is true or Q is true (or both) (‘P or Q’) P → Q: if P is true then Q is true (‘If P then Q’ or ‘Q if P’ or ‘P only if Q’) P ↔ Q: P is true if and only if Q is true (‘P if and only if Q’ or ‘if P then Q, and if Q then P’) P ⇔ Q: P is logically equivalent to Q Valid truth-functional inference rules Modus Modus Chain Disjunctive Argument Conditional Proof Ponens Tollens Argument P ∨ Q P P → Q P → Q P → Q ~P (or ~Q) : P ~Q Q → R Q (or P) Q Q ~P P → R P → Q Simplification Conjunction Double DeMorgan Implication Negation P & Q P ~(P ∨ Q) ⇔ ~P & ~Q P → Q ⇔ ~P ∨ Q P (or Q) Q P ⇔ ~~P ~(P & Q) ⇔ ~P ∨ ~Q P & Q Invalid truth-functional inferences Affirming the Consequent: If P then Q.
    [Show full text]
  • MGF1121 Course Outline
    MGF1121 Course Outline Introduction to Logic............................................................................................................. (3) (P) Description: This course is a study of both the formal and informal nature of human thought. It includes an examination of informal fallacies, sentential symbolic logic and deductive proofs, categorical propositions, syllogistic arguments and sorites. General Education Learning Outcome: The primary General Education Learning Outcome (GELO) for this course is Quantitative Reasoning, which is to understand and apply mathematical concepts and reasoning, and analyze and interpret various types of data. The GELO will be assessed through targeted questions on either the comprehensive final or an outside assignment. Prerequisite: MFG1100, MAT1033, or MAT1034 with a grade of “C” or better, OR the equivalent. Rationale: In order to function effectively and productively in an increasingly complex democratic society, students must be able to think for themselves to make the best possible decisions in the many and varied situations that will confront them. Knowledge of the basic concepts of logical reasoning, as offered in this course, will give students a firm foundation on which to base their decision-making processes. Students wishing to major in computer science, philosophy, mathematics, engineering and most natural sciences are required to have a working knowledge of symbolic logic and its applications. Impact Assessment: Introduction to Logic provides students with critical insight
    [Show full text]