an analytic process unrelated to issues.
coming up with claims, true or otherwise.
applying common sense to complex problems.
guiding us about critiquing thinking.
discovering what side you?re on.
determining exactly what the issue is.
realizing that all claims are equally valid.
win adherents to a position.
refute the positions of other people.
support or prove conclusions.
sound or unsound.
provable or unprovable.
strong or weak.
experiment and observations.
passions and emotions.
logic and reasoning.
elements of confusion.
conclusion or thesis of the passage.
intentions of the author.
rebut the arguments that support contrary positions.
state his/her position on the issue.
provide arguments that support his/her position on the issue.
syntactic; confusion caused by improper punctuation.
semantic; confusion caused by the meaning of semester.
semantic; confusion caused by groups with individuals in the group.
is generally more knowledgeable about a claim than others.
stands to gain from our acceptance of a claim.
has no stake in whether or not we believe claim.
positive or neutral; negative
promise of evidence without providing any support.
promise to nurture a claim following through on the promise.
the character of the person making the argument.
opposing the original claim.
who are expert but who might not have studied the issue.
on both sides of the issue.
plain and common sense term.
category and individual term.
subject and predicate term.
Block of exclusion
one of them is true and the other false.
the truth of one transfer to the other one.
the conclusion is true if the premise is false.
both of the claims cannot be false.
the two claims have the opposite truth value.
the two claims have unrelated truth values.
universal and particular
subject and predicate
A and B
less than equal
greater than equal
size and bias.
weight and volume.
similarities and dissimilarities.
gathered with enough patience
gathered with a specific purpose in mind
considered as part of a group of possible explanations.
included as the causal explanation.
considered a possible effect of another causal explanation.
feelings and intuitions.
outcomes and results.
religious commands and beliefs.
if it is based in accepted moral principles.
regardless, even if it means abandoning accepted moral principles.
usually the correct thing to do, but not always.
violating the consistency principle.?
anyone who is using moral reasoning.?
people who don?t reason about morals and just accept them at face value.?
| 1. (TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical fallacy. Name the fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant to the point at issue. Here is your example for this question: |
Someone says, "I have come before the board of supervisors to ask that you rehire Mr. Wildfire. I realize that Mr. Wildfire does not have a college degree, and I am aware that he has yet to finish a single project. But Mr. Wildfire is over 40 years old now, and he has a wife and two high-school-aged children to support. It will be very difficult for him to find another job at his age. I am sure you will agree." (Points : 15)
| Question 2.2. (TCOs 5, 8) In the example below, identify the presumed cause and the presumed effect. Does the example contain or imply a causal claim, a hypothesis, or an explanation that cannot be tested? If it does fall into one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due to vagueness, circularity, or some other problem of language. Also, tell whether there might be some way to test the situation if it is possible at all. Here is your example: |
This part of the coastline is subject to mudslides because there is a lack of mature vegetation growing on it. (Points : 15)
| Question 3.3. (TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give reasons for your judgment. |
I believe that violent video games contribute to sexual violence and other forms of anti-social behavior. No one has ever shown that it doesn?t. (Points : 10)
| Question 4.4. (TCOs 3, 9) Moral relativism is the belief that what is right or wrong may differ from group to group, or culture to culture. What are the difficulties of moral relativism? (Points : 10) |
| Question 5.5. (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation. |
Does jogging keep you healthy? Two independent researchers interested in whether exercise prevents colds interviewed 20 volunteers about the frequency with which they caught colds. The volunteers, none of whom exercised regularly, were then divided into two groups of 10, and one group participated in a six-month regimen of jogging three miles every other day. At the end of the six months, the frequency of colds among the joggers was compared, both with that of the nonjoggers and with that of the joggers prior to the experiment. It was found that, compared with the nonjoggers, the joggers had 25% fewer colds. The record of colds among the joggers also declined in comparison with their own record prior to the exercise program.
Here are also four questions/tasks. Write a paragraph to answer each one of them:
(1) Identify the causal hypothesis at issue.
(2) Identify what kind of investigation it is.
(3) There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups.
(4) State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report. (Points : 30)
| Question 6.6. (TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question. |
Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former Congressman] Tom DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he's mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the [Congress], it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior punishing pols for partisan reasons was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay's specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I'm sorry to say, hated.
-excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram
(1) What position does the author take on the issue at hand?
(2) If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the argument in your own words.
(3) What rhetorical devices does the author employ in this text?
(1) Issue: Whether DeLay is mean and not in line with normal behavior among Texas politicians.
(2) Position taken: Delay is mean and is not like other Texas politicians.
(3) One claim defines ?vindictive behavior? and then another claim is made that DeLay often behaves vindictively, whereas most other Texas politicians do not.
(4) ?By and large? and ?quite often? might be taken as weaselers. ?The Hammer? is a dysphemism. (Points : 30)
| Question 7.7. (TCOs 7, 8) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer the question in at least one full paragraph, giving specific reasons. |
One day, out of frustration, your roommate rips several pages out of his or her textbook, rolls them up, and throws them across the room. You go to pick up the pages. ?Leave them,? your roommate insists. ?It says something. It?s art.? ?It?s garbage,? you reply. Who is right? (Points : 20)
Question 8.8. (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.
Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of politics. If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won't expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case, that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political ?position? must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political position.
Your three questions are:
(1) What premises is the author using?
(2) What conclusions does the author come to?
(3) Does the passage contain any errors in reasoning? (Points : 20)
This question was answered on: Sep 13, 2020Buy this answer for only: $15
This attachment is locked
Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .
About this QuestionSTATUS
Sep 13, 2020EXPERT
GET INSTANT HELP/h4>
We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.
You can also use these solutions:
- As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
- As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
- For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
NEW ASSIGNMENT HELP?
Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround
Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.
WE GUARANTEE, THAT YOUR PAPER WILL BE WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND WITHIN A DEADLINE.