I would probably focus on evidence. Why you really need evidence to raise any belief, yes any belief and not just those in "scientific" domains, to the point of attention. That absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. The difference between genuine Bayesian evidence and reasoning by the representativeness heuristic. That no amount of clever arguing will help you reach the right answer if you're starting by writing the bottom line, rather than following the winds of evidence.

In my experience, philosophy students learn plenty about formal logic and argumentative fallacies, not so much about good inductive reasoning.