Summary Of The Chapter 'Analyzing Arguments'

For this assignment, you will compose two short critical essays explaining and evaluating arguments by other authors. This assignment allows you to analyze an issue from a variety of perspectives and assess arguments for or against the issue. By focusing your attention on how the original authors use evidence and reasoning to construct and support their positions, you can recognize the value of critical thinking in public discourse.

In this article titled “Analyzing Arguments: Those You Read and Those You Write” goes over multiple strategies and examples to help you analyze the meaning and purpose of a specific argument and how to strengthen your own.

In arguing that anti-Confederate southerners played a central role in Confederate defeat, Freehling shifts historical debate to ground that is at once familiar and novel. Historians such as Drew Gilpin Faust and Paul Escott have identified internal disaffection as the primary cause of Confederate defeat while Gary Gallagher has suggested that whites in the Confederacy maintained their support for the government even as military losses ended the war.[1] The South vs. the South expands the scope of inquiry, looking beyond internal fissures within the Confederacy to the divisions in broader southern society. In Freehling's telling, anti-Confederate whites undermined the Confederacy by remaining outside the nation while slaves sapped Confederate

Mr Campbell Newman was a popular lord mayor as a member of the Liberal Party, who served the Queensland government for three years from 2012 – 2015 (Lewis, 2015). In the recent 2015 Queensland state election, Newman was heavily punished by the public voters of Queensland as a result of treating the public servants unfairly by cutting jobs in contrast to his promises. He also claimed that there would be no forced redundancies and that he would try to lower the unemployment rate, yet these promises were never met. In support of this, the following essay argues that Campbell Newman didn’t interfere with the free market economy of Queensland, which can be beneficial for consumers in many ways because there is no government intervention. Instead,

Yes. The author gives many moral reasons why he believes an invasion on Iraq would be wrong.

When analyzing an argument, there are many things a reader must take in to consideration to make their own decision. They need to consider the facts, why the argument is being made, and the opinions already expressed by the writer. Based off all of the information from the argument, one can decide if they are for or against the decision at hand. The argument that I am analyzing today is the school dress code demanding too much from children. Looking at Karen Manicotti’s article, “Back off, dress codes. This is not your call” presents heavy evidence that students are being too controlled and degraded by the way the school dress code is being enforced.

The main assertion of this entire essay is that people will treat you differently and judge you based on your ability to speak english fluently, and because of this peoples lives can be changed.

A) Start by crafting one basic analytical argument concerning any aspect of each story. An analytical argument is an argument that helps us view the story in a new or unique way. A good analytical argument will clarify some aspect of the story or help others "make sense" of the story. Your argument can address anything: main themes, character analyses, symbolism, etc. Make sure you use evidence from the story to support your argument.

Just as it is easy to understand the steps that go into riding a bike, it takes practice to learn how actually to ride. Similarly, while this candid model of argument is relatively easy to understand intellectually, it takes practice to learn how to use this model to make effective arguments. It is necessary to provide ample opportunities for students to practice using this model to construct their own arguments. This course will provide a computerized tutorial for teaching this model and for helping students to assess their understanding. The course also provides a variety of written and spoken opportunities for students to make ethical arguments about topics in the course.

But In order to make effective decisions with the utilization of argumentation, all sides of the issue should be looked at. The pros and cons of an issue should be weighed and there should be an inclusion of diverse viewpoints, thoughts and circumstance especially when that I issue will affect a large population of people.

I think the argument does effectively persuade its intended audience. The article is relevant and current. Even though there was not a lot of cited data the points that are brought up are convincing, like how Stanford has designed a curriculum to teach students how to evaluate the information they are looking at. The writer addresses the idea that many people who do not know how to find credible information believe things on the internet that could be very fake. This information causes them to look at issues and make decisions based of off these fake news articles. This idea is very relevant and even affects me when I question if something is real or not. I agree with the writer. All ages need to learn how to find credible information on the

The first objection Smart presented was the question of how someone could describe sensations without any knowledge of neurophysiology. The seventh objection Smart presented stated, "I can imagine myself turned to stone and yet having sensations" . Smarts responds with the same rebuttal to both of these objections; that even if A is identical with B, one can know about A without having knowledge of B. Smart uses the example of lightning being one and the same as electric discharge. People having knowledge of lightning but not electricity does not imply that lightning is not electric discharge. This response also defeats objection 7, since this conceivability argument only ensues when the person conceiving has an incomplete understanding of

Analytical Summaries - For this assignment, you will compose two short critical essays explaining and evaluating arguments by other authors. This assignment allows you to analyze an issue from a variety of perspectives and assess arguments for or against the issue. By focusing your attention on how the original authors use evidence and reasoning to construct and support their positions, you can recognize the value of critical thinking in public discourse.

The introduction section comprises of powerful argument techniques and the use of rhetoric everywhere. One key point is the technique of commonplace, one of the building blocks of persuasion, which is information or knowledge that is commonly shared among an audience that creates an attitude of shared thinking. For example, Heinrichs uses pop culture examples of the Matrix, Britney Spears and Animal House to better connect with the audience, therefore, making his topic more interesting and relatable. Another key point is the technique of seduction where you manipulate someone to desire something through appeals to emotion and the senses. Heinrichs uses the Food Network as an example with its pleasing visuals and sounds of food. Another key

The author argues that because the advertisers canceled their contraction due to the reduction in the time of covering the weather and local news, they should get back to pervious timing and expand its time. Stated in this way, the argument reveals several instances of poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. To justify this conclusion, the author notes that they should attract more viewers to the news program in order to avoid losing the revenues from the advertisement. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion. Hence the argument can be considered incomplete and unsubstantiated.