C168 is Western Governors University's critical thinking and logic course, taught as part of the general education core.
Course descriptions in circulation present it as a systematic process for exploring issues beyond an unexamined point of view: identifying and clarifying problems, planning and gathering information, identifying assumptions and values, analyzing and interpreting information and data, and reaching well-founded conclusions.
Because we could not confirm the current wording on WGU's own site, check your course page for the official outcomes.
The challenge is that everyone already reasons. The course asks you to slow down and make each step visible.
Course at a Glance
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| University | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Course code | C168 |
| Level | Undergraduate, general education |
| Format | Competency-based, self-paced |
| Subject area | Critical thinking, informal and formal logic |
| Assessment | Check your course page for the current assessment type |
What C168 Covers
| Skill | What it means |
|---|---|
| Problem identification | Stating precisely what question needs answering |
| Information gathering | Finding relevant, credible evidence |
| Assumptions and values | Spotting what an argument takes for granted |
| Analysis and interpretation | Judging what evidence and data actually show |
| Well-founded conclusions | Reaching a conclusion that the reasons support |
Key Concepts Explained
Premises and Conclusions
An argument is a set of reasons (premises) offered for a claim (conclusion). Words such as "because" and "since" often introduce premises; "therefore" and "so" often introduce conclusions.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
A valid deductive argument guarantees its conclusion if the premises are true. An inductive argument makes its conclusion probable. Different standards apply: validity and soundness for deduction, strength for induction.
Example: "All nurses at this hospital are licensed. Ana is a nurse at this hospital. So Ana is licensed." That is deductive and valid. "Every customer I surveyed liked the new menu, so most customers will like it" is inductive, and its strength depends on how many customers were surveyed and how they were chosen.
Hidden Assumptions
Many arguments rely on an unstated premise. Making it explicit is often the quickest way to evaluate the argument.
Example: "Sales fell after we changed the logo, so the new logo hurt sales." The hidden assumption is that nothing else changed. Seasonal patterns, price changes or a competitor's launch could explain the fall, so the conclusion is not well founded without more evidence.
Common Fallacies to Recognize
| Fallacy | What happens |
|---|---|
| Ad hominem | Attacking the person instead of the argument |
| Straw man | Misrepresenting a view to make it easier to attack |
| False dilemma | Presenting two options when more exist |
| Hasty generalization | Drawing a broad conclusion from too few cases |
| Post hoc | Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B |
| Appeal to authority | Relying on someone outside their area of expertise |
Learn each fallacy through an example in your own words. Recognizing the pattern in a new context is the skill being tested.
Typical Tasks and How to Approach Them
| Task type | What it tests | How to approach it |
|---|---|---|
| Argument analysis | Finding premises and conclusion | Rewrite the argument as a numbered list |
| Fallacy identification | Spotting errors | Ask what the reasoning assumes and whether it follows |
| Evaluating evidence | Credibility and relevance | Check source, sample, date and possible bias |
| Problem-solving scenario | The full process | Clarify, gather, test assumptions, conclude |
Judging Evidence and Sources
Well-founded conclusions depend on good information. A quick checklist helps:
- Source: who produced it, and do they have relevant expertise?
- Purpose: is it trying to inform, persuade or sell?
- Sample: for data, how many cases, and how were they chosen?
- Date: is it still current?
- Corroboration: do independent sources agree?
Example: A supplement company's website reports that "90% of users felt more energetic". The source has a financial interest, the sample and method are unknown, and "felt more energetic" is not measured objectively. The claim deserves little weight until independent studies support it.
Where Students Get Stuck
- Confusing valid and true. A valid argument can have false premises; a sound one has true premises too.
- Similar fallacies. Compare look-alikes such as hasty generalization and post hoc side by side.
- Judging by agreement. Evaluate the reasoning, not whether you like the conclusion.
- Rushing. Read each argument twice before deciding.
Study Tips for C168
- Practice on real arguments from opinion columns and adverts.
- Make flashcards with a fallacy on one side and your own example on the other.
- Diagram arguments: premises above, conclusion below.
- Explain a concept aloud to someone else; gaps show up quickly.
How We Help with C168
Tell us which topics are hard and send any task instructions or study materials. A tutor prepares clear explanations, worked examples and practice items, or reviews your written analysis. See also our argumentative essay guide.
GradeEssays is independent of Western Governors University. We provide tutoring and study support only: we never take exams or access student accounts, and you submit your own work under WGU's academic integrity policy.
Think It Through, Step by Step
Share your study topics or task. A tutor prepares explanations and worked examples to sharpen your reasoning.
Start My C168 HelpFree revisions · Full refund if late · Written from scratch for your order
Frequently Asked Questions
Systematic reasoning: clarifying problems, gathering information, identifying assumptions, analyzing evidence and reaching well-founded conclusions, along with recognizing fallacies.
Check your WGU course page for the current assessment.
Both are WGU critical thinking courses. Your degree plan shows which one your program uses.
Check your course materials. Much of a critical thinking course is informal reasoning in everyday language.
A deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises.
No. We never take exams or log in to student accounts. We offer tutoring and explanations.