Hi Constance's Argument Analysis

Nicholas Carr Claimed that the internet affects our information processing. Carr backed up his argument by speaking with a wide array of educated and reputable people like friends, colleagues, a blogger, GMU and a professor making his argument validity greater. Carr admits that he and his friends also; have the same problem by saying that he was appealing to emotions by using Ethos.

The problem with the belief that people are morally responsible, for what they do and act, revolves around humans not actually having free will because their actions are already determined. When people make decisions or perform actions, they usually feel as if they are choosing freely. The decisions people make are the direct results of their desires; past experiences; personality; psychological traits; and needs and wants. Determinism is the view that if an event has happened, given the previous state of the universe and the laws of nature, then it is impossible that it could not have occurred (304). Libertarianism is the belief that the universe is not determined and that humans possess free will. Kane, the supporter of libertarianism, claimed

I believe that the argument put forth by Daniel Engster is valid, but not sound. There is one potential flaw with P5, and one with the derivation of P4 from P1-3.

I’m pretty sure Craig Spencer felt the exact same way when he ate at a public restaurant, rode the subway, and went bowling in Brooklyn and look where that has gotten him. Troops who are returning from West Africa are being quarantined just like the astronauts of Apollo 11 were quarantined and no one thinks or thought any less of them for doing so. I believe that it is more heroic of them to have taken the necessary precautions to protect even more people than they already have rather than to just puff out their chests and say they’re invincible. In an article called “Ebola-Quarantine Objections are Frivolous,” Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich elaborated on the fact that courts have continuously advocated for quarantines for infectious diseases like tuberculosis and smallpox.

I am writing this letter in regards to Brooke Austins Inquiry Paper. In this paper she really has excelled and used her strengths to present a strong argument. Her inquiry paper about Juvenile Delinquency programs and there effectiveness outlines the risks associated and the issues these programs create. In Brooke’s introduction she briefly states the issues that arise from these programs and asks the audience a question to ponder throughout the inquiry.

Both letter to the editor and editorial staff offer position that are supported by both facts and opinions. The letter explores to urges the new reusable bag ordinance while the editorial staff argues that they are serious about making Proposition 328 mandatory in every store. While both side make an acceptable case, it is clear that the letter provides a better argument.

Part three seems to underuse the subject chosen, but in this part, there will be a shift of focus, it is primarily given to the method the article uses, as well as the concept of scientism.

Through understanding the errors, I made in Writing Assignment #3 (WA #3) I was able to edit and better understand what corrections was needed for Writing Assignment #4 (WA #4) to become a well thought out paper. For WA #3 I received a B+ because of the lack of further development in my argument, which made the voice in the argument, the context behind sources and the thesis weaker.

Family is one of the most important things in existence and each family member has their own importance. However, there is one type of family member that has its own special meaning, the family pet. Everyone has a preference on what they consider to be the perfect pet and there are many arguments that express opinions and reasons on the subject. Evaluating these arguments can help determine the logic and reasoning behind them, which in turns helps the reader make a critically thought out conclusion of the information at hand. Pet owner, Sean Curtis gives his argument on why cats make better pets than dogs ( Critical Thought pg 213 Curtis) and gives a variety of reasoning, logical fallacies and opinionated statements that without further analysis, could be persuasive.

While some religions treat it as the worst thing imaginable, it is a lifestyle is lived by many and cannot be changed. Heterosexual people that do not have a negative opinion of the homosexual community are one of the reasons that they are able to prosper so well. Without the help and support of others that are outside, progress is hard to be mad. As long as empathy plays a role in this then the goal will continually be reached as more people understand. Just as they are seeing that a homosexual couple can raise a child just the same as a heterosexual couple can. The data in the article says that about 70 percent of those who responded to the poll said that gay couples should receive the same treatment and rights as straight couples. This is all out of sympathy. What if children were not allowed to be adopted by a heterosexual couple that was able to love and support them? It would hurt not only the couple, but the child in the long run due to foster care being an inadequate form of nurturing for developing

I will have to agree with Hochswender, SUV’s aren’t working with terrorists. The essay was very persuasive, even though I already agreed with his ideas. One of his major arguments about the gas millage of an SUV is now becoming a lesser thought because of how science is increasing the miles per gallon on the giant metal vehicles. Another argument is that if you were in a car accident with a drunk driver you would rather be in a big SUV than a small sedan. Without the need for resources it’s easy to think about, a bigger vehicle can protect more than a small car. Hochswender had a convincing argument towards keeping his big SUV even if a director hates you for it.

Besides BonJour's argument of illustrative examples, moderate rationalism is defended by two intimately related dialectical arguments. The argument is that the denial of a priori justification will lead to a severe skepticism, in which only the most direct experience could be justified. Stemming from this severe skepticism, comes the stronger argument that argumentation itself becomes impossible. This essay will describe the distinct segments of the argument and will demonstrate the relationship between the two arguments.

I appreciated the way that Ehrenhalt began his argument by stating his social security number, bold statement that made me pay attention. Personally, I tend to fall in line with his thinking. We already provide social security cards to every person in the United States along with a large amount of us having state issued identification cards or driver’s licenses. Therefore the cost of implementing a national identification card does not seem to be out of reach. This is a very complex topic with so many variables. Who would have access to the system? Would it be used solely to track criminals in that way that DNA is used? What would be the consequences for corruption by those who use it or the consequences for those who hack its data?

The informative article by Hu has several similar characteristics from the previous documents. Hu’s article seems to be more of a summary of the previous two articles, she covers the problems of technology and the potential benefits of tech. Similar to Turkle, Hu states that there is concern of the effects of consumption and content in today’s media. Hu also goes over the potential for our children to learn by using technology in similar viewpoints to Rosin’s argument. Hu used plenty of examples to illustrate her point from her own personal experience similar to the former authors. Hu was sure to back up her claims with actual research evidence showing both sides of her argument in equal light to the reader. Hu also pointed out that there just

Gay parents are facing discrimination because of their sexual orientation. Twenty-two states currently allow single gays to adopt and 21 states currently allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt in the U.S. (Mallon, 2007, p. 6). The ability of gay couples to rear a child should not be denied only because they are gay. Homosexuals may be looked down upon by society, but they still are humans and have morals. These morals they possess, may influence a child more than those morals taught to a child with heterosexual parents. All over the world, children suffer in families consisting of alcoholics, drug abusers, and sexual abusers (Powell, 2007, p.1). It is not possible that these environments are safer than what would be provided by homosexual