The And Structure Of The Intellectual Argument

The And Structure Of The Intellectual Argument
When you write a persuasive essay, it's good to think about how you will construct your argument,
from the way you will organize your key points to how and where you will disprove opposing
views. A lot of students find it hard to identify what it is that makes a good piece of essay writing. At
the core of such writing, it is the nature and structure of the intellectual argument.
So, what is an argument? An argument is well defined as giving of reasons, evidence and support for
a claim that something is true. Most importantly, there are two essential elements involved in
addressing arguments as the basis of critical thinking. The first component is argument identification
and the second element is argument evaluation. In this section, we will focus on identification of
argument.
It is important that you recognize which kind of essay questions need some judgment, and then be
able to construct a compelling, convincing argument in your essay writing. A key cause of complaint
from tutors is that students at all levels do not do this perfectly and end up making their writing
descriptive instead of argumentative.
You may be caught by surprise to hear that the word "argument" does not require to be written
anywhere in your assignment for it to be an important part of your task. In fact, making an argument
then later on expressing a point of view on a subject and going ahead to support it with evidence is
often the primary aim of academic writing. Your instructor perhaps assumes
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Argument in the Apology Essay
The main argument in The Apology by famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato is whether,
notorious speaker and philosopher Socrates is corrupting the youth by preaching ungodly theories
and teaching them unlawful ideas that do harm to individuals and society. In his words Socrates
quoted the prosecution's accusation against him: "Socrates is guilty of corrupting the minds of the
young, and of believing in supernatural things of his own invention instead of the gods recognized
by the state." 1 Further Socrates consistently introduces tediously compiled number of examples to
provide valid and sound arguments to prove that he is innocent of the charges brought up against
him to the court.
The first approach that Socrates uses to prove his ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The conclusion that can be made about these premises is that Socrates is not the one who is
corrupting the youth because he is a specialist in this field. In addition, the real corruptors of the
youth are the greater population of Athens because they are not specialist on teaching wisdom. What
important about this conclusion is that even though Socrates uses horses as an example he manages
to apply his example to all beings and prove his case that he is innocent of the charges.
The second example that Socrates makes is that people that don't care about the youth are the ones
who are really corrupting them. "It is quite clear that by now, gentlemen, that Meletus, as I said
before, has never paid the slightest attention to this subjects. However I invite you to tell us,
Meletus, in what sense you make out that I corrupt the minds of the young." 3 The premises of this
quote are:
1. Meletus has no concern for the youth.
2. Meletus who shows no concern for the youth cannot charge another person of corrupting the
youth
3. Since Meletus, charges Socrates with corruption of the youth, though he cannot charge him.
The conclusion from these premises is that Meletus is contradicting himself, and Socrates is
innocent. The last point that Socrates makes to prove that he is not guilty is he says that even if he
was corrupting the youth he was doing it unwillingly. "Either I have not a bad influence, or it is
unintentional; so

Counter Argument On Meditation
Counter Argument
Although admired by many very few of us truthfully know what meditation is. It is more or less
mental activity aiming at shifting human concentration to something else; others consider that
humans meditate when they visualize something that gives them peacetime or satisfaction. No
matter what the scientific definition is, the goal is to slow down and, eventually, completely break
the continuous activity of the human mind. Mariam Emara is supporting meditation powerfully as
she is an Arhati Yogi, pranic healer and meditation instructor she is trying to transfer her knowledge
to others and to inspire people to start practicing meditation. Although the writer of the article tried
to promote the idea and practice of meditation, she relied more on her personal experience instead of
scientific facts. She resorted to false assumption, logical fallacies and weak evidence from different
cultures without explaining any of them.
The reader would with the author's ideas because at the beginning she mentioned that meditation, ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The first logical fallacy is slippery Slope – meditation can help, because it is the brain that
ultimately controls the body. Meditation is a mental and spiritual activity, while the brain in the
article context is a human organ that produces chemicals, renews cells and controls the physiological
aspects of the human body. I.e. meditation as a spiritual practice does not necessarily lead to
physiological enhancement. Another slippery slope is: "by using techniques of positive affirmation,
it can help in weight loss." Weight loss is more problematic than this. The third logical fallacies false
analogy – "Egypt has not always been fertile ground for a meditation culture...many people do not
believe in meditation. "The fourth logical fallacy generalization – American or Chinese counterparts
practice meditation and make a difference in their

Toulmin Argument Analysis
The Toulmin method is an effective way to carefully analyze a text within a written argument. When
writing the Toulmin method, the readers can show how effectively or ineffectively the author's
argument is. The article, "Raise Wages, Not Walls," Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J. B. Mitchell
argue that raising the minimum wages will help solve the immigration issue rather than building
walls. The essay has a claim, but has weak supporting evidences and reasons that does not support
the claim. In the Toulmin method, the authors provide a claim, evidence, and qualifiers. The claim is
the position that the author is arguing for. In this particular article, the authors claim that raising the
minimum will turn "back the tide of illegal immigration" ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
The authors insist "raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to something closer to $8," is a
more effective solution to the immigration problem (Dukakis & Mitchell, 2006). After a claim is
stated in the essay, the authors must provide grounds. Grounds are reasons or supporting evidences
that bolster the claim. The authors use evidences to support the claim. Dukakis and Mitchell present
a weak ground in the article by giving an ineffective way that can solve the issue. The authors
disagree with building "a wall along the Mexican border" as a solution to the illegal immigration
problem (Dukakis & Mitchell). There is a flaw in this solution because the authors believe that
illegal immigrants will find a way to get into the United States even if there is a wall. This is a weak
ground because it does not really support the claim, but it shows how an alternative effort are not
really effective. Another poor evidence that is provided by the article is when the authors state that
the minimum wage needs to be raise before "enforcing the wage law and other basic labor
standards" (Dukakis & Mitchell, 2006). The authors give a reason of how this will allow the
employers to regulate the businesses, which would in turn

The Dreaming Argument And The Evil Demon Argument
Descartes organised his ideas on knowledge and skepticism to establish two main arguments, the
dreaming argument and the evil demon argument. The dreaming argument suggests that it is not
possible to distinguish between having a waking experience and dreaming an experience. Whereas,
the evil demon argument suggests that we are deceived in all areas of our experiences by an evil
demon. This essay will investigate the validity of the arguments and to what extent the conclusion of
these arguments is true. The soundness and the extent to which the premises are true will also be
explored. After evaluating these arguments it will be concluded that the dreaming argument is valid,
but is not sound. Whereas, the evil demon argument is both valid and sound.
In his First Meditation (Feinberg & Shafer–Landau, 2001) Descartes explored his ideas regarding
knowledge and skepticism, which led to him developing ideas based around the certainty of his
experiences. From this he developed his first argument: the dreaming argument.
The dreaming argument was based upon the idea that both waking and sleeping (dreaming)
experiences can be very similar, and that distinguishing between the two may not be possible. This
led to Descartes doubting that waking experiences are actually infact waking experiences and not
dreams. Descartes developed this argument and claimed that in order to be certain of any
experiences, we have to be certain that we are not dreaming. However, Descartes continued and

Trump's Persuasive Arguments
Trump won the first presidential debate between himself and Hillary Clinton based on the criteria of,
who had the least amounts of interruptions between the candidates and the moderator, who had the
least amount of meaningless insults in their argument against each other, and the last one being who
provided the most ethical, logical, and emotional appeals in their argument. All of these factors were
the criteria for the winning of this debate, for the reason of the criteria providing judgment of debate
etiquette and the inclusion of the needed elements of a persuasive argument. This criteria leads to
the conclusion that Donald Trump won the first presidential debate.
The first criteria was the amount of interruptions the candidates had between ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
While both candidates used primarily ethos for their arguments, and both were effective with their
ethos arguments, so much so that neither really beat the other on providing ethical appeals. Though
for logical appeals Trump provided more logical appeals than Clinton, for example Trump brought
up that stop–and–frisk lowered murders for New York. While Clinton bundles that without stop–
and–frisk crimes including murders are down which is also true, but as Trump said murders are
going up after stop–and–frisk was no longer in use. They were both right in this instance, because
murders were at their third lowest, but murders were at their lowest when stop–and–frisk was
invoked, and with this argument Trump took over the logical appeal for the debate. Then going on
the emotional appeals that the candidates presented, Clinton coame up almost with no emotional
appeals for her argument, while Trump came up with quite a few. Trump uses the fact that he would
never thought he would be making as much money as his is now, and how people should support
someone that has grown from the ground up with their life, and he attempts to make many more
arguments trying to appeal to people's emotional side. While Clinton only really tries to make an
emotional appeal when she states that her father was a small business owner that gave them a nice
middle class living, which doesn't really move as many people as saying they have gone from
nothing to something. Leaving Trump to have provided the most effective emotional appeals to his
argument. All together Trump provided the most appeals for his argument by having provided more
logical and emotional appeals than Clinton and the same amount of ethical appeals as her as

Argument For Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is.
Inductive reasoning is a probabilistic reasoning in which the main claim concerns the improbability
of the conclusion being false given the premises being true. Premises of an inductive argument do
not entail the conclusion.
In deciding whether or not an argument in inductive it is important to pay attention to the occurrence
of special indicators words, the actual strength of the inferential link between the premises and
conclusion, and the style of argumentations. However, in case of a conflict between the indicators
and form and the inferential links, indicators have the least priority in deciding the kind of
underlying reasoning, simply because, the language of many arguments is incomplete.
Premises in an inductive ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I haven't read many books about philosophy and never invested much time and effort in learning and
evaluating the subtle arguments out there. I'm taking baby steps in practicing philosophy and
anything I write here is for the purpose of delivering this assignment and challenging myself to
formulate some ideas that can easily be wrong. With that in mind, this is what I think about Hume's
Problem of Induction:
a) Healthy skepticism. This is the keyword in Hume's argument. What I take from his line of
reasoning is that we should always save a place in our mind for doubting our conclusions and being
open to other ideas. Knowing that our past experiences aren't a box in which we can contain the
universe and expect it to behave within our self–appointed candidates of frameworks can lead to
some real nasty dogmatic beliefs.
b) Credibility vs. absolute truths. Theories gain credibility as the body of data grows and fits within
the theory, all attempts to falsify it fail, and they lead us to a better understanding of the
surroundings which in due time become a part of our knowledge about the word. Theories aren't our
way of claiming to know the absolute truth about a subject or unchanging declarations written in
stone. Induction and deduction, testing and predictions are tools we use to form the best possible
model of reality that matches that of the real

Toulmin's Model Of Argument
Argument According to Chaffee (2004) argument can be a way of thinking in which certain
premises or reasons are offered in support of what is being said or concluded. Regarding
disagreements, this word refers to a strong or angry dispute when discussing something. In general,
most people can presage a dispute. At the workplace, the best ways to confront disputes is by being
prepared for them, or simply avoiding them. Of these two, the best way is avoiding them, but
temporarily. Usually, parties involved in disputes only present their perspective. Emotions of anger
and/or frustration might obstruct sound reasoning and valid perspectives from the other parties. As
mentioned before, conflict will arise at the workplace; but that does not ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Analyzing conflict Analyzing the elements of a conflict is not an easy task, especially when
emotions are running high. Emotions usually hinder objectivity and can divert the real cause of the
conflict, (Collins, 2009; Janasz, et al, 2009). Conflicts can be analyzed in a more neutral way when
they are broken down and evaluated in depth; the Toulmin's model of argument is an effective tactic
to accomplish this. This model consists of several parts: claim, evidence, warrant, qualifier, and
rebuttal. The claim is the assertion hoped to prove. The evidence would support the rationale of the
claim. Warrants are the connections or assumption between the claim and the evidence. Backing
refers to the elements that support the warrant. Qualifiers set the limits on the claim. And rebuttals
are potential objections to the claim. Research studies show that providing resounding arguments
consisting of claim plus data, or claim plus data and backing, help to rise the confidence of people 's
beliefs, (Kim & Benbasat, 2006). Among the drawbacks of this type of analysis it can be mentioned
that it takes time to elaborate it. In addition, as is a person that is doing it, objectivity may not be the
most accurate. Still, the advantage of this analysis involves pondering in depth the problem from
several viewpoints.
Working through conflict There are a number of methods to manage conflict in the workplace:
avoiding,

Arguments In Crito
Crito presents three contentions for why Socrates ought to get away. The initial two are genuinely
frail. The third, concerning Socrates' obligation to his children is the strongest. Crito's first
contention is that if Socrates does not get away, then he will hurt Crito in two ways. From one
viewpoint Crito will lose a decent companion when Socrates dies in jail, and on the other, Crito's
reputation will be harmed. People of Athens won't realize that Socrates stayed in prison. They'll
assume that Crito refused to get Socrates out because he wasn't willing to spend the cash.
Subsequently Crito will get a reputation for caring more for the money than his friend. In this
argument Crito is accepting that it is an awful thing a man to accomplish ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Many of Crito's arguments concern the opinion of the majority––what will they think if Crito does
not help Socrates escape? What will they think if Socrates is not responsible for his children?
Socrates argues that the opinion of an expert is more important than the opinion of the majority. He
gives the example of someone in training. Such a person does not pay attention to the advice of the
general public, but to his trainer. Socrates extends the analogy to deciding on what the right way is
to act. If we listen to the majority rather than experts we could harm our souls, the part of us that is
mutilated by wrong actions and benefited by right ones(Crito, 47a–48a). Socrates does concede that
as a majority, the general public has the power to put people to death, but he states that the most
important thing is not living, but living a good life, so that it is not worth following the opinion of
the majority if it means sacrificing something that is important for living a good life.(48b) The
above is one of Socrates' most fundamental principles – that the really important thing is not to live
but to live well. Therefore he considers whether it is morally right to pay off the guards and escape.

Evaluation Of A Good Argument
7.3 – Neutralization of the fallacy:
In paragraph 4 the author has violated the sufficiency criterion of a good argument. The author has
violates the sufficiency criteria by committing the fallacy of false analogy. In paragraph 4 the author
states, "In the mid 1940s – before publicly funded healthcare – my grand parents sold their car to
pay the hospital bill related to my father's birth, so "purchasing" the birth of a child is nothing new."
This is a wrong analogy. Just because you pay for hospital bill and cloning, does not make them the
same. In one situation, two persons life is preserved, and in the other a person's life is changed. The
author could have avoided this fallacy by not comparing these two totally different situations at all
or giving an analogy that has the same situation as human cloning.
7.4 – Positive Critique:
In the fifth paragraph the author argues that the paternal and maternal linages are not the most
important thing as what we identify ourselves with us humans, which is quite convincing. As his
first premise he states, "Most people I know do identify with both their maternal and paternal
lineages." As his second premise he states, "Dual heritage may be normal, but it is seems central to
our conception of ourselves as humans." And as third premise he sates, "And identical twins seems
none worse for the knowledge that they are not genetically unique individuals." Even though that
was said that this argument is convincing, it is not without

The Mind Argument And The Evil Demon Argument
Renѐ Descartes is known to be the "founder of modern philosophy" aswell as a man who was
superior in the scientific revolution. As a catholic and a man of science he wanted to show how the
scientific world had space for God and freedom which hence led to the Mediditions published in
1641. In the first meditation Descartes introduces the idea that in order for him to establish anything
in the sciences which is "stable and likely to last" he must build truths of which he can be certain. In
order to do so he believes he must start right from the foundations, demolishing all of his previous
opinions. He finds out that his senses often deceive him and concludes that it is "prudent never to
trust completely those who have deceived us even ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The evil demon argument is the idea that there might be a spiritual being, almost like god, deceiving
us in matters that are not put into doubt by the dreaming argument – the "simpler and more universal
things". A key point to be remembered throughout this argument is that Descartes is not trying to
have us believe in the possibility of the evil demon but in turn he is just trying to make the reader
consider it in order to dismiss the idea. This argument is similar to the dreaming argument from the
perspective that everything we know to believe could be false. There is no evidence for simple
mathematic equations like 2+3=5 to be true just as there is no evidence to prove we are not living
within a dream. The argument puts into question whether the evil demon deceives us into believing
things in which are simply made into a virtual reality when in fact there could be "no earth, no sky,
no extended thing, no shape, no size, no place". Just as the dreaming argument can be broken up into
premises and a conclusion the same can be done for the evil demon;
– If I am certain to be certain of anything at all then I need to be certain that I am not being deceived
by an

Summary Of Mcmahan's Argument
An argument must always have a statement on which it stands, and an effective argument provides
support for this stance. An argument is similar to a recipe, when provided with the correct materials
it comes out strong and good, and when not provided with the correct materials it comes out lacking
impact. McMahan provides an in depth analysis of each ingredient needed to make a proper
argument. She begins by looking at the literature as a whole and finding the main issues in the
writing. She suggest that this should be done because it helps come up with the reader's opinion and
stance on the material. In essence, it acts as a gate way to the rest of the paper. After, McMahan
continues by looking at the claim. The claim is the thesis statement,

Argument Of Panpsychism
There is an argument out there that Panpsychism is the best way to view the world, but there is also
the objection that this view may not be correct as it is just a last–ditch effort to try and explain
consciousness. This objection can be overcome with logic in the end. Panpsychism is the overall
view that consciousness is a fundamental and pervasive feature of the world, meaning that
everything has a consciousness. As explained by Keith Frankish in his article "Why panpsychism
fails to solve the mystery of consciousness", Panpsychism follows with the concept of idealism.
Idealism says that consciousness is the only thing to exist therefore it must be a fundamental and
pervasive feature of all things. Panpsychism is also able to explain the major flaw of physicalism
which is trying to figure out how consciousness fits in. This view has come about as all the other
views that try to explain consciousness appear to fail. The general argument for this form is "1.
Either some theory to explain consciousness or Panpsychism. 2. There is no other way to explain
consciousness. 3. Therefore, Panpsychism must be true." Since all other forms to try and explain
consciousness have failed, including explaining it through physics, saying sense–qualities don't exist
as Galileo did, Berkley's argument for idealism, etc, Panpsychism is the only option left. It is the
option that addresses all the issues and flaws with the previous arguments and explains them.
Although Panpsychism can

Example Of An Argument
ii) What is an argument? Elaborate with examples. In everyday life, people use argument to connote
a squabble between people. But in critical thinking and logic, an argument is a list of statements,
which consist of two or more premises or assumptions and a conclusion of the argument. To accord
an argument is to provide a set of premises as reasons for giving credence to the conclusion and not
necessarily to attack or criticise someone. Arguments can also be a tool to underpin other people's
opinions.
Here is an example of an argument:
If you want to find a good job, you should study smart
You do want a good job
So, you should study smart.
The first two sentences are the premises of the argument and the final sentence is the conclusion. To
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore, the patient does not have malaria.
Referring back to the criteria that has to be fulfilling to produce a valid argument, the given example
obeys the criteria with a true premise which leads to a true conclusion. This is how a valid argument
is identified. For valid arguments, the addition of extra premises will not change the conclusion. A
valid conclusion is deduced from a set of premises can never be changed by the addition of new
premises.
b) Invalid arguments
If an argument is invalid, then it is possible for a false conclusion even though all the premises are
true. It is logically possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Here is an example of an invalid argument:
All actors are robots
Johny Dep is a robot.
Therefore, Johny Dep is an actor.
Now, if these premises are true, it does not follow that Johny Dep is an actor. It would follow if we
mention that only actors are robots in the premises, but it does not say that. We can assume that
anyone in the acting ccupation is a robot, but robots might be doing different jobs besides acting. So,
the fact that Johny Dep is a robot does not guarantee that he is also an

Rhetorical Analysis Of Arguments
What is an "argument"––that is––how do you define "argument" now?
Previously I would have defined an argument as a heated debate between two parties about who was
"right," and who was, "wrong," about a specific subject. Now however, I understand that arguments
(at least effective ones) are meant to be rhetorical. Effective arguments take advantage of logical
appeals that we've learned about in our reading called, "Ethos, Logos, and Pathos." The rhetorical
appeal of the author's credibility, the logic of the argument, and the emotional appeal of the audience
respectively. We see rhetorical arguments constantly in our everyday lives, most notably within
advertisements. When crafting an argument there can be three argumentative sub–types to follow.
These sub–types include an Argument to Convince (in which the author is trying to change the
audience's way of thinking about the subject), an argument to persuade (where the author is ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
We should not be blind to arguments made by our peers and professors, rather we should argue for
our specific beliefs. If these beliefs turn out to be incorrect, we should be willing to change our
stance on the issue.
How will you approach arguments in your own life following this class?
WRD 103 and WRD 104 taught me to critically look at arguments to evaluate their rhetorical
arguments. One notable takeaway form this class will be the regular evaluation of advertisements to
view them apart from their logical appeals. I also plan on not trap myself within an echo chamber
whenever I disagree with another user on social media. Rather, I may send a private message to that
user and argue the subject they are posting about. I'll likely be using rhetorical arguments within my
own career to convince an audience of players to feel empathy for a sprite or to have them see logic
within my

Fallacies In An Argument
Being aware of and avoiding fallacies can considerably improve our lives. When there is a fallacy in
an argument there is a failure in reasoning which makes the argument unsound. While I believe we
must have all had an argument containing fallacies, I think it is important that we remember to think
logically in order to have a valid and smart argument.
There are many different types of fallacies. One type of fallacies includes the ad hominem, which
means the person attacks the other person instead of the arguments. Many politicians are guilty of
having this kind of fallacy in their argument. Another type of fallacy is the red herring. This type of
fallacy occurs when the person arguing deters the attention by shifting to a different subject. There is
also the fallacy of appeal to force, or scare tactics, which as stated in (Think, p. 139), "occurs when
we use or threaten to use force– whether it is physical, psychological, or legal in the attempt to get
another person to back down on a position and to accept ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Whether we agree or not, with other's views, it is important that we are respectful and listen to what
the other person has to say. We also have to make sure to ask for clarification if we misunderstand
what the other person is trying to share. If we feel that an argument is weak, we should ask the other
person to provide us with more information. Having good writing and communication skills helps us
avoid fallacies. As stated in (Think, p. 157), we should "clearly define your key terms in presenting
an argument. And expect the same of others. Don't be afraid to ask questions. If you are unclear
about the definition of a term or what someone else means, ask the person to define the term or
rephrase the sentence." It is vital to be clear on both sides of the argument because otherwise the
whole argument would be useless since there is obviously a

A Fallacy Ontological Argument
1. A fallacy is an argument with some sort of mistaken proponent that makes the argument unsound.
One such fallacy is the genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy is when a claim is declared false or invalid
not due to the integrity of the argument but from the source, such as a group or business. An
example of a genetic fallacy would be if Dasani put out a claim that their water was the purest and
that claim was discredited not because of their claim being false, but that it came from Dasani
themselves.
2. An Ontological argument demonstrates that god exists not by science or proof but by the mere
concept of God itself. An example of an Ontological argument is the idea that God is by definition
the greatest possible being which "implies that God must actually exist, because if he did not exist in
reality, he would not be the greatest possible being." A critique of this argument is that it is basically
begging the question, as from the beginning of its claim, it has already decided that it is true and
uses that to back support its own argument. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The problem of free will is the question whether humans truly have free will or not. Some believe in
determinism, which is the belief that everything is already pre–determined and is controlled by a
constant chain of causes. Others believe in free will which in its philosophical definition, that one
must at least make some choices out of one own desires without constraint or pressure from outside
sources. One prominent view of free will is compatibilism; which is the idea that even though they
believe determinism is in fact true, some actions can still be free as they can act based on one's own
desires, also known as soft

Rogerian Argument
By definition, "Argument is an activity, often pleasurable and productive, that engages us at high
levels of inquiry and critical thinking" (Ramage 2). Although, in my opinion, argument can be
defined as a disagreement between two people with opposing views and or beliefs on a given issue.
An argument that comes easily to mind is one that my mother and I had post–prom. We were
disagreeing on whether I should be able to attend an after–party at one of my friends' homes in New
York. I believed that I should be able to attend because I was 18, I was about to graduate, and it was
possibly the last time my friends and I would be able to have fun together for a while. She
disagreed, countering with the fact that there would be alcohol at the party,

Welfare Argument Analysis
The welfare system has a been a debatable topic for many years now. People have various
viewpoints that relate to the welfare system. Most people believe that the welfare system is abused.
On the other hand, people do not mind paying more money for the less fortunate to be provided with
food, shelter, etc. This is a hard topic to consider because there are countless variables that play a
major role in how much money one could receive from welfare or other forms of government
assistance. Mountain Heights Academy presents an argumentative speech. In this argument, the
unknown author addresses that the welfare system must be reformed because the current system has
only increased poverty levels. It additionally addresses that there is a wide range ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Assumptions weaken an argument because it is often difficult to argue unless the audience shares
the same assumptions. The assumptions need to clearly be explained and not left for interpretation.
The author claims that several of the families keep having more babies to increase their handouts
from the government (Mountain Heights Academy). However, the author seems to have no
background such as being a social worker which deals with assisting lower class people with
government funding such as welfare. They additionally have no proof that people have children only
to receive money from the government. Also, the opposing side is never addressed. There are some
individuals and families that truly need the welfare system to assist them sometimes. They do not
necessarily live off it or have children only to collect money from the government. This assumption
can be interpreted many ways because there is no proof. This assumption weakens the argument
tremendously. For instance, the author mentioned that the welfare program as we know does
absolutely nothing that it was set up to do (Mountain Heights Academy). The author remarks that
welfare system does nothing, but does not provide any facts or other information to support the
assumption. Information or research could have been provided to justify why the current welfare
system does nothing. This assumption is left for interpretation by the

Argument In The NFL Protests
NFL players are kneeling during the national anthem. The protest that has been ongoing since last
season is finally getting some attention albeit mostly negative. Since mentioned by Trump there are
many sides to this story, people are saying it's disrespectful to kneel in protest while others are
joining the protest themselves. John Legend, the author of "The NFL Protests Are Patriotic," would
take a knee if he had the chance. Legend believes that the protests are just another stepping stone to
creating equity to minorities living in America. Legend gives a logical argument by providing
historical protests that spurred changes in favor for civil rights and applies it to the current protest
happening today. Overall his argument is well put together but is hindered by how Legend speaks of
Trump in his introduction paragraph. This protest is sparking outrage throughout the nation because
of how the peaceful protest is occurring and forgetting the importance of the protest itself.
In his opening paragraph, Legend begins by detailing President Trumps shortcomings regarding
patriotism. Legend provides hyperlinks to support his each of his claims against Trump. A problem
with addressing the president in this negative way is that he isolates Trump supporters; as a result
some of these supporters will stop reading and won't progress further than this opening statement.
Althoguh this hinders his argument, Legend creates a bridge intho the next paragraph which links
back to the last

Structure And Significance Of Argument
Structure and Significance Of Argument
Name of Student:
Course:
Date: STRUCTURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ARGUMENT
Introduction
An argument is the exchange of opposite views about a given action in order to convince people that
an action is either right or wrong. In most cases someone else has given their conclusions on the
argument and one tries to prove that the conclusions are either right or wrong in relation to how they
feel about the action. An argument is made up of premises and conclusions. In an argument, the
philosopher tries to support their conclusion on something through the use of premises. Although
most arguments end up leading to chaos it is a good way of reaching a conclusion where many
people are in agreement.
Thesis ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Findings
In the passage Hume, Section IV, pp. 20–25, the philosopher, Hume sums that inferences based on
one's experience are not founded on argument or a procedure of the comprehension. He thinks that
we are dedicated to the common knowledge that the future will be similar to the history only that we
are not sensibly vindicated in retaining this belief because reasoning as a tool is weaker than we
could have imagined. He goes further to support his argument by using a number of premises.
Firstly, he argues that he might know many facts through sensory experience but the fact that her
ally is in Germany or that the sun will show up tomorrow is an unobserved experience and is known
through a process of cause and effect like his friend being in France might have been a fact he knew
through receiving a letter and about the sun rising tomorrow might be because the sun has risen in
the past times. He sums up that our understanding of causes and effects should be founded on
experience since we conclude future phenomena from what happened in the past.
Secondly, he uses demonstrative reasoning supporting relationship of clues and the moral reasoning
supporting issues of truth. He explains that we cannot be aware that the future will look like the past
based on the demonstrative reasoning because there is no ambiguity in proposing that the future will
not be similar to the past similar

Descartes Dreaming Argument
The topic of this essay is Descartes' First Meditations and I will be discussing in detail the Dreaming
argument and the Evil Demon argument.
According to Descartes', "As I think about this more carefully, I see plainly that there are never any
sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep." This is the
fundamental principle of the Dreaming Argument. The scenarios in which we experience whilst we
are asleep are comparable to the scenarios we experience whilst we are awake. Often, we struggle to
tell from our own perspective where our experiences are derived from; it is difficult to differentiate
whether our experiences stem from reality or our dreams. The issue with this is that our unconscious
This can be challenged as to sit in a lecture you must be certain that you're sitting in a lecture, but
you cannot be certain that you are not actually dreaming, therefore you cannot be certain that you're
sitting in a lecture. P2 – there is no way to be certain that the experiences we perceive to be reality
are our reality. Descartes' argues that there is no way that we can be completely certain that such
experiences are not unconscious experiences, "Any experience that strikes me as waking
experiences such that I am perceiving the environment in a normal way are indistinguishable from
possible dreaming experiences."
An objection to this argument is that we can distinguish being awake and being asleep. If we can
remember our dreams once we are awake, we can recognise them as dreams as they generally don't
make sense which differs from our logical conscious experiences. Dreams are usually only coherent
for a short period of time which is a distinct difference from being awake. Once we are conscious,
even our most vivid unconscious experiences can be recognised as dreams. Your waking
experiences can be intensely recalled whereas you do not always remember your unconscious
experiences. I believe that this is a weak argument because sometime struggle to fully distinguish
between reality and our dreams as our unconscious experiences are overwhelmingly intense and
life–like.
A counterargument

Formal Argument Vs Ethos
In everyday life, arguments are commonplace. Many times, people need to convince others who
may have a different opinion on a certain matter. There are two types of arguments, formal
arguments and informal arguments. A formal argument is one that focuses on using logic and
supporting evidence while taking apposing arguments into account. An informal argument is
generally an unorganized shouting match in which an emotionally charged, verbal barrage replaces
practicality.
In an argument, the goal is to either persuade others who may not agree with your position or to
come to a solution that works for everyone. To create an effective argument, a writer can utilize
logos, pathos and ethos. Using Logos means to convince through the use of logic and reasoning.
Using Pathos is to try to persuade people through emotions to elicit a sympathetic response. Lastly,
the use of ethos is to focus on the credibility of the writer and/or evidence to convince others that an
argument has merit. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Some appeals may be more effective depending on the audience. It's important to first determine
things about the audience such as: "the age, gender, interests, values, preconceptions, and level of
education" (Kirszner 15). Beyond that, a writer should consider the audience's general demeanor. An
overall audience may be friendly, neutral, or hostile towards your argument. "Often times you will
find that your audience is just too diverse to be categorized. In such cases[,] . . . make points that
[you] think will appeal to a variety of readers." (Kirszner

Arguments Against No Platforming
Do your ideas deserve to be heard? If you answered yes, like most people, the question then
becomes who should allow or disallow you to spread these ideas? This is essentially the controversy
surrounding a hot topic known as no platforming. No platforming refers a speaker not being granted
a platform, by a certain group or person, in order to voice their opinion. People against no
platforming argue that no platforming is not a legitimate tool of activism and that it is imperative we
give everyone a platform, in order to ensure open dialogue for social issues. People that argue for no
platforming suggest that no platforming has to be accepted so that we can avoid hearing
unnecessary, hateful rhetoric, and divisive, offensive language from people who do not deserve to be
heard. The following will further investigate the validity and strength of arguments made on both
sides regarding the different opinions on no platforming. The debate side against no platforming
argued that currently "there is no way to distinguish between the cases of speakers that cause
genuine harm, and cases that cause trivial offence or discomfort." (Monica)1 . They also say that "no
platforming stymies social justice" (Monica)2. The ideology behind these comments are based on
the fact that people's feelings and subjective opinions, cannot trump the freedom speech or
association, caused by no platforming. On top of this they argue no platforming is an illegitimate
form of activism based on the

Fallacies To An Argument
Throughout this school year, I've learned that an argument it's the most common writing task, even
though people don't notice that they are using it. Frequently, the goal of a writing is to describe or
explain a point of view and support it with evidence. Indeed that is what makes an argument, to have
a claim and try to convince people by giving examples that help illustrate the reason why the claim
it's true or not. However, writing an effective argument can be challenging as it requires strategies to
be convincing, as well as consideration of how to formulate it in order to avoid fallacies. On one
hand, rhetorical strategies are necessary to write a persuasive argument; strategies such as an appeal
to logos, ethos, or pathos, rhetorical devices, etc. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Also, it is important to consider the subject, the occasion, the audience, the purpose, the speaker, and
the tone to ensure all of those connect adequately to each other and the message is delivered in a
right way. On the other hand, fallacies are very common within arguments since finding a
convincing justification can be difficult. Some fallacies dealing with tradition, patriotism, or
ethnicity go unnoticed due to the fact that people use it often, but it lacks validity and it makes the
argument weak. If one compares an argument to an analysis, the two are different since an argument
serves to prove a point of view while an analysis it's more similar to an evaluation of how authors
use rhetorical strategies. However, an argument and a synthesis essay are very similar, the only
difference it's that in a synthesis argument the evidence comes from sources and not the mind of the
writer. An argument can be difficult to write, but with the right rhetorical strategies, complexity such
as a concessions and a counterarguments, and precaution to avoid fallacies, it can be highly

Examples Of Valid Arguments
1. A valid argument is an argument which has a conclusion that follows its premises. The premises
can be true or false. When one or both premises are false it is possible that the argument seems
completely valid, but it has false conclusion. An example for a valid argument which has a false
premise is:
Permise1: If dog can fly.
Permise2: Terrier is a kind of dog
Conclusion: terrier can fly
(Here the argument is valid, but the first premise is false, and makes the argument unsound.
A valid argument can have true premises which lead to a true conclusion as well. For example:
Permise1: Human needs water to stay alive.
Permise2: John is human.
Conclusion: John needs water to stay alive.
This kind of argument is valid and sound because it has ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Aristotle argues that practice virtues, and learning from virtuous people enable us to flourish. To
become a good person, we must practice virtuous acts regularly. Gradually, these acts become our
habits. Good habits and moral virtues are the principle to have a good and happy life. Virtuous
people train us how to be more virtuous. Aristotle explains that if we want to achieve moral
excellence, we need to practice the virtues. Moreover, we need virtues friends, and a moral exemplar
to imitate them to improve our virtues. As we develop our moral behavior, we gradually will find
more happiness in our lives. Although Aristotle admits that health, success, and money play an
important role to make a person happy, he argues that the virtues are the most important factors that
determine one is truly happy or not. So, just thinking of virtues is not

Summary Of The Dream Argument
In the excerpt of Certainty, Moore provides a series of arguments against the Dream Argument. In
this paper, I will present Moore's claims and focus on analyzing his reasoning for why the skeptic's
hypothesis is inconsistent. Throughout the essay, I will argue that Moore's inconsistency approach is
unable to disprove the Dream Argument by showing how his explanation does not reject the main
premises of the argument.
Overview of the Dream Argument:
The Dream Argument states that because we are unable to eliminate the possibility that we are
dreaming our perceived reality, we cannot know anything about it. Formally, we can express this as:
If I don't know that I'm not dreaming that P, then I don't know that P
I don't know that I'm not dreaming that P
Therefore, I don't know that P
The first premise of this argument certainly seems true and is supported by Moore's thought
experiences throughout Certainty. The soundness of this proposition is further demonstrated in the
lectures by elaborating on the story of the Duke of Devonshire introduced by Moore. Likewise, I
believe that we can safely accept this premise as true based on the evidence covered in the readings
and lectures. Moore then goes on to make an interesting claim that we can convert the Dream
Argument from using Modus Ponens to Modus Tollens*, which would result in a format of:
If I don't know that I'm not dreaming that P, then I don't know that P
I know that P
Therefore, I know that I'm not dreaming that

The Strengths And Weaknesses Of Descartes ' Dreaming...
This essay will attempt to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes' dreaming argument
and evil demon argument. Through discussion, I will show why the evil demon argument is more
plausible than the dreaming argument. The essay will give a brief definition of the two arguments
and explain why these arguments are important. Then I will discuss the two arguments, considering
both sides and referencing previous work by other philosophers. I will conclude with a short
summary of the topics covered.
For the purposes of this essay it is important to establish what is meant by a valid and a sound in
relation to arguments. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines valid and sound in respects
of philosophical argument. A argument is ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Descartes is considering that all of his experiences could be false and that everything is just the
invention of a powerful being. This resulted in this argument:
(1) If I am to be certain of anything, I must be certain there is no evil demon.
(2) I cannot be certain there is no evil demon.
(3) I cannot be certain of anything.
This is Descartes' Evil Demon argument. These two arguments are important as they bring up many
queries about how we live our lives, and if we can really be certain of anything around us at all.
Descartes' Dreaming Argument comes from his thinking that there is no way of knowing if you are
sleeping or if you are awake. To know something is to have no doubt of a fact, it must be a justified
true belief. To be justified it must hold logical reason, you cannot state something is true without
evidence. In order for it to be true it is not enough to justify it, but it must be justified with true facts.
Finally, you must believe it, in order to know something it must be true in your mind. As a result
Descartes doubts his consciousness as he cannot truly know that he is awake. This spurs Descartes
to question if any perceived knowledge of reality is really true. Descartes calls his senses into
questions as he notes, "it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even
once" and therefore concludes that as a result it is prudent, never to trust his sense. In

Inductive Argument
In the first part of the assignment we were asked to identify components of arguments, premise and
conclusion, for the passages. Where applicable we are to highlight key words or phrases that identify
a claim as a premise or a conclusion. A premise is the support for the conclusion. (Missimer, 2005)
The first example has several premises as follows if Sue's baby is a boy it will be named Mark and if
it is a girl it will be named Margaret. Another premise is that Sue will have a boy or girl. "So" is a
keyword indicating the conclusion that Sue's baby will be named Mark or Margaret. In the next
example, "because" is a keyword in the premise and indicates that the conclusion has preceded and a
reason will follow. This premise is that fantasy ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the last part of the assignment we are asked to identify the arguments as inductive or deductive.
An argument is said to be deductive if its conclusion is claimed to necessarily follow the premise.
An inductive argument claims only that its conclusion probably follows from its premises. That is,
the inferential claim is that since the premises are true or acceptable, the conclusion is likely to be
true or acceptable. (Missimer, 2005) The first and second examples are inductive because even
though the premises may be true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. They will then
have to be looked at to see if they are strong or weak and if all premises are true or if one or more is
false. We can then determine if the argument is reliable or unreliable. The third example is a
deductive argument if we go by the definition above. If the premises are true then it simply isn't
possible for the conclusion to be false. If you have a deductive argument and you accept the truth of
the premises, then you must also accept the truth of the conclusion; if you deny it, then you are
denying logic

Famous Violinist Argument
In this paper, I will argue how Judith Thomson's Famous Violinist counterexample is a
counterargument to the conclusion that, morally speaking, a fetus may never be aborted. First, I will
explain the targeted argument that Thomson is challenging. Next, I will present her counterexample,
the Famous Violinist case. Then, I will describe Thomson's argument function as a counterargument.
In my evaluation, I will defend how the famous Violinist case is a successful counterexample by
proposing an objection to this counterargument and give an explanation to defend Thomson's
counterexample.
For the purpose of understanding this paper, a counterargument is an argument that challenge an
idea created in another argument and identify a scenario that disproves ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
One argument against this analogy is the violinist and abortion has many differences. Assuming that
the Thomson's case is a large analogy, one can argue that a fetus and the mother have a biological
connection together, while the violinist and the abducted person are artificially connected.
Therefore, there is a major difference between the two. However, this relationship is not a sound
argument to provide relevance to the moral permissibility. Moreover, one can argue the analogy
used in this case is not an argument. The counterexample does not use the analogy to make the
whole argument. If the analogy is not included in the counterexample, the counterexample will still
be just as effective because violinist in her counterexample can be replaced with a fetus. This word
swap will retain the same idea. The moral standing of this case provide sufficient proof that this
counterargument was successful at disproving the target argument premise

Fallacy Arguments
In the literary exposition, finding the good argument or why bother with logic, Rebecca Jones,
demonstrates how to invent and recognize good and bad arguments. Jones advances her
demonstration by providing the different models of rhetoric. These arguments are demonstrated as
well through ideas such as ethical behavior is necessary, fallacy of public argument in mainstream
media, as well as the three appeals using the power of emotion to persuade us.
Fallacies in argumentation occur in many different situations. One such situation where this is
apparent is fallacy of public argument in the mainstream media. These fallacies can be unintentional
though described by this quote, "While fallacious arguments, if purposeful, pose real ethical
problems, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
She speaks on many different topic but her major premise is augmentation and what makes a good
or bad argument, as well as the nature of argumentation itself, She begins with discussing the idea
that "argument is war," where she goes on to say further "The war metaphor offers many limiting
assumptions: there are only two sides, someone must win decisively, and compromise means
losing." Jones describes how Americans see argumentation as a battle or war that can be won or lost.
Jones then goes on to talk about fallacies in the public and in media, she illustrates this with her
usage of a cartoon and a video link leading to a debate between john Stewart and a talk show host.
Jones later speaks upon classical rhetoric, rhetoricians such as Aristotle and Gorgias, and the nature
of a good citizen. She subsequently begins to introduce and elaborate upon deductive reasoning,
inductive reasoning and syllogisms, afterwards moving on to the three appeals. She then goes on to
describe Toulmin who "views argument as it appears in a conversation, in a letter, or some other
context because real arguments are much more complex than the syllogisms that make up the bulk
of Aristotle's logical program," meaning that he sees arguments in

Fallacies Is A Fallacy Argument
A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, an argument that doesn't really support or prove the contention it
is supposed to support or prove. (Brooke Noel Moore, 2016) A fallacy is building an argument with
wrong reasoning which leads to the end result of not being able to support or prove it. According to
UNIVs Master List of Logical Fallacies there are 144 Logical Fallacies, but I am going to focus on
one, Appeal to Pity. (Williamson, n.d.)
The Appeal to Pity fallacy occurs when a speaker or writer tries to convince us of something by
arousing our pity rather than by giving a relevant argument. (Brooke Noel Moore, 2016) We have all
seen the sad puppy commercials on TV and they make us feel sad and pity the dogs that are shown
on out television ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The argument of such adds is that there is something wrong and now you will feel pity for whatever
the matter is. BCSPAs premise is that every hour there is an animal being abused, and there are so
many animals in need of help and warm homes, so in conclusion be an innovator and become a
donator to the campaign. It is a fallacy because the commercial is appealing to the emotion of
audience by making them pity the animals. Their premises are good and valid because there are
many suffering animals and there are homeless animals but their conclusion could be taken wrong.
Donating money to a campaign can be viewed as a negative option for some because they would
rather physically help rather than giving money and not being 100% sure where it is going. This
fallacy is effective because there are many people with weakness for helping animals or just have a
soft heart and wouldn't find a donation of eighteen dollars a month a whole lot, so they are tempted
and end up calling the number provided on their screens to subscribe and help innocent animals
which are being abused or are in need of help. As you are watching the ad and listening to the song
you feel empathy and pity for those animals and you get a feeling of guilt if you don't consider
donating, and that is the purpose of that

Steve Denning Argument
Over the years, firms have increasingly been maximising shareholder value. However, Steve
Denning, a former director of the World Bank, author of six leadership and management books and
columnist for Forbes, disagrees. His article "The Origin of the 'World's Dumbest Idea': Milton
Friedman", was published on June 26, 2013 on Forbes, debates against Friedman's argument that the
social responsibility of corporations is to make money for its shareholders. The main issue here is
whether the maximisation of shareholder value as the guiding principle of executives is detrimental
to the corporation. Although Denning has exhibited valid points in his argument, his lack of citation,
biased view on most arguments and his tone has dampened the credibility ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
He attacks Friedman selective choice of legal realities that help prove his stance and discarding of
those that do otherwise as mere "legal fictions". In that, Denning disputes that Friedman rests his
arguments on legal realities such as the law of agency, and dismisses another legal reality – the
corporation – for the sake of illustrating how the corporation's money belongs to its stockholders,
customers, and employees but not the real legal owner – the organisation itself. Instead of providing
a balanced argument on the legal definitions of terms "corporations" and "agency", Denning's stance
is mainly concerned with how Friedman conveniently chooses legal facts that only provide backing
to his conclusions, instead of tackling these core terms to help support his own argument.
Subsequently, Denning may have misinterpreted Friedman's main argument. The actual title of
Friedman's article is "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits". Denning
hastily substituted the word "sole" for "social" and misinterpreted Friedman's argument to be that
that the sole purpose of the firm is to make money for shareholders. This is not true. The main issue
Friedman was tackling was the social responsibility of business; the responsibility that it has to the
society. In fact, the word "sole" was not mentioned even once in the

The Argument For The Elimination Of Television
Approximately twenty five billion dollars is spent on advertising a year, a number far greater than
the amount spent on education nationally. Why so much money? Jerry Mander in his book Four
Arguments for the Elimination of Television, lays out the numerous problems that exist with
television, a problem that cannot necessarily be improved. In essence, technology is not a tool that is
neutral. Mander describes that in different institutions and technologies, such as advertising, mass
production, militaries, the basic structure of particular technology or institution establishes its
influence on the world, the types of individuals that will make use of it, and how people will use it.
Television is a tool that established the kinds of effects it will have on peoples lives, how people will
use it, and who will use it, and if such technology continues to be used, the kinds of effects and
political forms that will result from it. Mander develops four arguments throughout his book. The
first argument Mander describes is that television conditions people to accept another person's
authority. He begins by explaining that although television might be interesting and useful it packs
people into a mental as well as a physical condition suitable for the appearance of autocratic control.
Artificial environments, therefore, strip individuals of obtaining direct knowledge of nature. He
follows his second argument by stating that technological advances are controlled by the "powers
that

Collaboration and Argument Essay
Collaboration and Argument
Carmetta C Jackson and Waltresa Mayho
ENG/215 EFFECTIVE ACADEMIC WRITING
JULY 9, 2011
DR Tracy A Boothe
Collaboration and Argument Collaboration is defined as working collectively with others or
concurrently to achieve a
goal especially in a creative attempt to put together the right elements of success implemented to
accomplish something.
Argument is defined as controversy or the implication of expression through opinions for an effort
to persuade; for the submission that provides support or is in contrast to some idea.
Robert Ennis defines an argument as "an attempt to support a conclusion by giving reasons for it."
(Critical Thinking, 1995) Irving M. Copi, in his Introduction to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Papers that are written collaboratively are created in a different form then papers that are written by
an individual due to the fact that collaboration means to work with another or others on a joint
project while individual means working independently. Collaborative writing refers to organizing
and the planning of shared written documents during the process of team building. As a team you
also have more members that can get the job done faster and even sometimes better. Collaboratively
written papers start with preliminary discussions of an ideal then on to brainstorming as input is
divided into sections so that participation can be achieved by each team member with open channels
of communication within the allotted time line so that the assignment can be assessed by the group
to provide the final draft. The independent working individually creates their papers differently by
doing all of the work on their own with full control of their time limits, methods, process and style.
They are responsible for their own argument. The downside is that they are not able to collaborate
and get ideals from others and time restraints can be a factor on large tasks and when something
becomes too difficult to handle there is no one to assist you. Collaboratively and individually
arguments are written differently on the account of facts and opinions that are researched as a group
and the individual argument is researched solely

Rhetoric Argument Analysis
Question 2: RHETORIC
The rational core of the argument is that the Australian delegates should not give money to the
UNFCCC since it is bad for the Australian economy. However, the author is using a plethora of
rhetorical devices that make the argument unclear, and they will be examined below.
Firstly, the author has used Ambiguity within the argument. Ambiguous terms have about a set of
two or more definite definitions, and if used in the wrong manner can make the argument unclear.
Author's use of ambiguity – "... the left dream up."
In this context, the word 'left' is ambiguous since it could mean that the author is literally talking
about people on the left in terms of direction or does it refer to people that stand for the leftie
democratic ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
People would more likely be willing to agree with polls and other statistical arguments since it
makes the argument sound more valid than it really is. In this sense, the arguer probably intends to
skew the argument in their favour to make readers agree with their standing since 'statistics usually
don't lie'. This technique is known as a Spin (Following the Poll).
Moreover, there also exist many instances of Safety Net terms. Considering 'Less than 45%' as an
example, it can be clearly seen that the arguer is trying to give themselves wiggle room so that they
do not need to fully commit to the statistic or the argument itself.
In addition to this, the author also uses a linguistic device known as Certainty & Doubt to further
draw us away from the logical core of the argument. The use of words like 'obvious', 'despite' and
'Its impossibility' means that author is trying to cover up the fact that they may not have real
evidence on the topic at hand to fully support their

Monochromatic's Argument
EVALUATION
–argument in support of thesis
–defend, criticize, Some questions you might consider: does her argument succeed in getting to the
desired conclusion? Which premises are the weakest points of the argument? What objections might
be raised to these premises? Are there any ways that her argument could be bolstered to defend
against such objections?
OBJECTIONS
In addition, the objection about the thought of experiment was stated that a person who has a
monochromatic disease actually knows about visual colour experiences. The person with
monochromatic also able to figure out what coloured things look like whether in real life or only in a
visual kind of things. For example, Mary would recognize or detect the colours when she first

Identifying Argument Analysis
Identifying Arguments, Explanations, or Descriptions Assignment
Introduction
This paper will look at various scenarios which will be identified as an argument, an explanation or
a description. In order to determine what each of these scenarios is, it would be best to understand
what each category is. To make an argument is to give one or more reasons in order to support a
claim (Facione & Gittens, 2016). Arguments may be civil, congenial and even respectful (Domguia,
2014). In order to make an appropriate argument an individual must provide a sequence of
statements called claims or conclusions, which are then followed by premises. Claims need to be
supported and premises do the supporting (Domguia, 2014). An argument must also have a reason.
In the scenario the author begins with a claim that increased police patrols have a limited impact on
crime. As Facione and Gittens (2016) state, "we analyze our evidence and map our findings." In this
case the claim is that police patrols have a limited impact. If we were to map out the findings the
next would be the reasons the author has for his claim. The author states police are spread so thin
that officers would be a chance encounter rather than a daily occurrence. This is the first piece of
evidence the author uses to support their claim. The next piece of evidence the author provides is
that many crimes cannot be deterred. This is then explained by the fact that many crimes occur in
private residences rather than in a public place. The last piece of evidence is that some people are
not deterred by the police in general. Therefore, an increase in numbers would have no effect as the
criminals will change their approach to the crime rather than stop completely. The author is not
describing what the effect an increase of officers has on the public and criminals, but is describing
that it has little effect. Another individual would be able to argue that increased police patrols have a
greater impact on crime if they chose to. The passage is not an explanation as the factual
information is arguable and it is not a description due to the claim the author made at the beginning
of the

The And Structure Of The Intellectual Argument

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Jennifer York

More from Jennifer York (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The And Structure Of The Intellectual Argument