Chapter 21 — Exercises

These help you make the shift from absorbing to arguing — without losing your disciplined mastery. Sample answers for closed items follow.

A. What Would You Do?

Scenario 1: The participation grade

You're respectful and quiet in class; your grade is docked for "lack of participation." You: - (a) Protest that quiet respect should count as engagement. - (b) Start participating — prepare a point/question in advance and speak early — understanding that here, voice is expected. - (c) Keep silent; participation grades are unfair. - (d) Drop the class.

Scenario 2: "Who disagrees with me?"

The professor invites you to argue against her theory. You: - (a) Stay silent; contradicting the professor is disrespectful. - (b) Offer a reasoned disagreement: "I see it differently because [evidence]…" — which is encouraged here. - (c) Agree with everything to be safe. - (d) Assume it's a trap.

Scenario 3: The essay

An essay asks you to "analyze and evaluate" a theory. You: - (a) Summarize the theory and the textbook accurately. - (b) Construct your own argument — analyze assumptions, weigh evidence, take and defend a reasoned position. - (c) Copy the expert's view as the "right answer." - (d) Avoid taking any position.

Scenario 4: Stuck on the material

You don't understand a concept. You: - (a) Struggle alone; bothering the professor is rude. - (b) Go to office hours — that's what they're for — after trying yourself first. - (c) Assume you should already know it. - (d) Give up.

Scenario 5: The "wrong" answer (new)

The professor asks an open question and you have a half-formed idea you're not sure is "right." You: - (a) Stay silent until you're certain it's correct. - (b) Offer it tentatively ("I'm not sure, but could it be… because…?") — exploring ideas aloud is how the class works here. - (c) Wait for the professor to give the answer. - (d) Only speak when you have a perfect, complete answer.

Choose and justify each. Why does summarizing (3a) earn a lower grade than arguing (3b)? Why is a tentative, exploratory contribution (5b) welcome?

B. Decode This

  1. "What do you think?" (from a professor)
  2. "Critical thinking."
  3. "Back up your claim."
  4. "Let me play devil's advocate."
  5. "That's a great question."
  6. (new) "I'd push back on that…"
  7. (new) "Can you say more about that?"

C. Translate Between Cultures

Task 1 — From summary to argument. Take any idea from your field. Write (1) a summary sentence (what the expert says) and (2) an argument sentence (your reasoned position on it, with a because-clause).

Task 2 — Prepared participation. Write one entry-phrase + point you could use to speak up early in your next class (e.g., "Building on the reading, I think… because…").

Task 3 — Critical ≠ negative (new). Write two "critical" responses to a theory you respect: one that defends it with fresh reasoning and one that challenges it — to prove that critical thinking can agree or disagree, as long as it argues.

D. Culture-Shock Journal

  1. The reversal. How does "questioning over absorption" compare to your previous education? What's hardest about the switch?
  2. Speaking up. What stops you from participating — shyness, English, cultural habit? Which strategy could help most?
  3. Your strength. How is your disciplined mastery / foundational rigor an asset in a debate-focused classroom?
  4. Authority (new). Your previous education may have taught deference to expert authority. How does it feel to be expected to evaluate (even disagree with) experts? Where does that come from in the West (Part I)?

E. Ask a Local

Ask a Western classmate or professor: - "How do students here disagree with a professor without being rude?" - "What does 'good participation' actually look like in this class?" - (new) "Is it okay to share an idea I'm not sure about yet?"

Record the answer.

F. Self-Assessment

Rate 1–5: 1. I construct my own argument (not just summarize). 2. I participate in class (prepare a point, speak early). 3. I can disagree with a professor respectfully, with reasons. 4. I use office hours. 5. I understand "critical thinking" as analyze/evaluate/construct (not criticize).

Note date and scores. (Appendix J collects the book's self-assessments.)

Sample Answers & Discussion

A: 1 → (b) — participate; here, voice is expected and silence reads as disengagement. 2 → (b) — reasoned disagreement is encouraged (the Socratic invitation is genuine). 3 → (b) — construct your own argument; summarizing (a/c) shows absorption but not thinking. 4 → (b) — use office hours after trying first. 5 → (b) — exploratory, tentative ideas are welcome; the classroom is a place to think aloud, not only to recite certainties. Why 3a < 3b: summarizing proves you absorbed the expert's view; arguing proves you thought — and independent reasoned argument is what the system prizes as "critical thinking."

B — Decode This: 1 = give your own reasoned view (not a summary). 2 = analyze/evaluate/construct an argument (not "criticize"). 3 = support it with evidence/reasons. 4 = I'll argue a position to test the idea (not necessarily my real view). 5 = genuine encouragement — professors love questions. 6 = "I'm going to challenge that" — an invitation to defend your reasoning, not a personal attack. 7 = "expand/develop your idea" — genuine interest, a chance to go deeper.

C — Task 1 model: (1) "Smith argues that X causes Y." (2) "I find Smith's claim only partly convincing, because it overlooks Z, which suggests the relationship is weaker than stated." Task 2 model: "Building on the reading, I think the author underestimates [point], because [reason]." Task 3: the point is that both the defense and the challenge are "critical thinking" — what makes it critical is the reasoning, not the verdict.

D, E, F are personal — your honest reflection is the answer.