Zombie Argument

Zombie Argument
Charmain Rantsieng
Philosophy Essay (20 March 2013)
RNTREF002
Essay topic three
The important problems of the mind module are: how do we understand the nature of mental events, their relation to the physical world and physical
events and fundamentally the problems with other minds. This essay essentially serves to evaluate whether the Zombie argument against Cartesian
Dualism is sound by: criticising the Zombie argument through analysing the validity of each premise of the Zombie argument, defending the Zombie
argument against one of its objections and responses from the Cartesian Argument by analogy. This essay will offer reasons to believe the Zombie
argument by contrasting it with the strengths and weaknesses of the Cartesian ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore one can trust that because one thinks one exists; this leaves each of us with his/her own mind (Blackburn, 1999: 49). Premise two states that
we can and do know that other people have minds, this can be based on the interactions we have with other people. The fact that someone else can
love you back and you can feel it makes it possible that they are connected to your mind in the mental realm which can only mean that they do have a
mind. Based on the fact that it is difficult to conceptualise that one may be the only existent being makes it open to believe that one is not the only one
existent– other people do exists and therefore they have minds. Premise two therefore is valid which diminishes what is presented in premise one about
Cartesian Dualism that we can never know that other people have minds. Premise three therefore lawfully, following from premise one and two that
with the validity presented in previous premises, states that Cartesian Dualism is false.
The reason why it can be believed that the Zombie argument is true is that we can know that other people have minds based on experiences, having
mutual feelings as other people and same reactions as other people. This shows that they are conscious and they do have minds because their reactions
are triggered by their mental events which determine how they should react.
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

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,

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

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'sargument 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

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

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

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 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

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

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 ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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. Anargument 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

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

Fallacies Of Ambiguities Of A Fallacy In An Argument
A fallacy occurs in an argument when the premises do not provide the necessary support to derive the conclusion. Three common types of fallacies
are fallacies of vagueness, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of equivocation. In fallacies of vagueness, such as slippery slope fallacies, occur when
the argument exploits borderline cases caused by vague language. Fallacies of ambiguity occurs when a word or phrase with multiple definitions is used
within an argument. Arguments with fallacies of relevance occur when the premises persuade through emotion rather thanlogic. Fallacies of
equivocation, fairness slippery slope fallacies, causal slippery slope fallacies, ad hominem fallacies, and fallacious appeals to authority are all contain
premises that illogically support the conclusion by exploiting either vagueness, ambiguity, or relevance. Fallacies of equivocation are arguments that
use an expression or work with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument which ruins
the argument. An example of a fallacy of equivocation is: All trees have bark. Every dog barks. Therefore, every dog is a tree. In this argument ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
An example of this type of fallacy is: If we teach high school students about sex, it is likely that we will teach middle school students about sex. If we
teach middle school students about sex, it is likely that we will teach elementary students about sex. We should not teach about sex in elementary
schools. Therefore, we should not teach high school students about sex. This argument is fallacious because it is assuming the transitive property in
that if high school students are taught about sex, eventually elementary school students will be taught about sex. Therefore, the premises do not give
valid support for the

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 anargument 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. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
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

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, thelogic 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

The Mind Argument And The Evil Demon Argument
RenСђ 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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

Toulmin Model Of Argument
This week, I learned that the Toulmin model is a very good model of argument because it is made of grounds, warrants, and backing, as well as
rebuttals. Having these characteristics in an argument makes it very sound and convincing. Including the grounds in your argument allows the reader
to understand why you are arguing something. This also makes a connection to the author, and in turn makes theargument more meaningful. The
warrants allow the author to make a connection between the grounds and the claim. Connecting why you are arguing something with you initial claim,
what you are arguing, gives the claim more strength. Warrants also give the author the chance to provide evidence (logos) to strengthen their argument.
Backing provides an

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

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

Zombie Argument

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Renee Delgado

More from Renee Delgado (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Zombie Argument