7
The Argument Component of your Mental Map
Keywords
arguments; certainty; generalization; mental map; variation amongst knowledge claims
Having presented the key to the mental map (a set of tools for thinking), we now briefly introduce the mental map components, before focusing in detail on the first component: the match between claims and warranting in arguments. How do the components relate to the tools? The authors whose work you study will have employed the tools for thinking in order to develop a convincing argument. The four components of the mental map will help you evaluate a range of factors that contribute to the content and robustness of that argument (
Table 7.1
).
In short, your mental map will enable you to home in on what authors were trying to do, why and with what success. In this chapter, we discuss the component that focuses on the match between authors’ claims and the quality of the evidence supporting them.
Two dimensions of variation among knowledge claims
In
Part One
, we saw that an argument is constructed from one or more
claims to knowledge
– assertions that something is, or normatively should be, true.
Table 7.1 Components of the mental map
Mental map component
Aspect of authors’ argument that it helps you examine Two
dimensions of variation amongst
Two
dimensions of variation amongst knowledge claims
about the social world, affecting their vulnerability to criticism
Authors’ tentativeness or certainty about their claims and their willingness to generalize, relative to the amount of appropriate evidence available
Three
kinds of knowledge
that are generated by reflecting on, investigating and taking action in the social world
The basis of their claims, as relevant to theory, new research evidence or experience
Four
types of literature
that inform understanding and practice
Whether the account aims to inform theory, research knowledge, practice or policy, and some common weaknesses that can render each type less than convincing
Five sorts of
intellectual project
that generate literature about the social world
Authors’ reasons for undertaking their work: aiming to understand, evaluate, change others’ action directly or through training, or improve their own action
These claims form the conclusion, which is one half of the argument. The claims are supported by some form of warranting: the half of the argument that justifies why the conclusion should be accepted. Claims vary along two important dimensions, according to the amount of appropriate evidence contained in the warranting. If there is a mismatch, we see the warranting as inadequate.
In
Chapter 3
, we saw how warranting can be provided, and be appropriate, but still be inadequate – not sufficiently convincing for the critical reader. An inadequately warranted claim often fails to convince because:
It is based on an insufficient amount of robust evidence to support the degree of
certainty
with which this claim is made.
The e ...
Strict Standards Only variables should be passed by reference.docxflorriezhamphrey3065
Strict Standards: Only variables should be passed by reference in /home/socialresearch/public_html
/kb/introval.php on line 3
Home » Foundations » Philosophy of Research »
Introduction to Validity
Validity:
the best available approximation to the truth of a given
proposition, inference, or conclusion
The first thing we have to ask is: "validity of what?" When we think about validity in
research, most of us think about research components. We might say that a measure
is a valid one, or that a valid sample was drawn, or that the design had strong
validity. But all of those statements are technically incorrect. Measures, samples and
designs don't 'have' validity -- only propositions can be said to be valid. Technically,
we should say that a measure leads to valid conclusions or that a sample enables
valid inferences, and so on. It is a proposition, inference or conclusion that can 'have'
validity.
We make lots of different inferences or conclusions while conducting research.
Many of these are related to the process of doing research and are not the major
hypotheses of the study. Nevertheless, like the bricks that go into building a wall,
these intermediate process and methodological propositions provide the foundation
for the substantive conclusions that we wish to address. For instance, virtually all
social research involves measurement or observation. And, whenever we measure or
observe we are concerned with whether we are measuring what we intend to
measure or with how our observations are influenced by the circumstances in which
they are made. We reach conclusions about the quality of our measures --
conclusions that will play an important role in addressing the broader substantive
issues of our study. When we talk about the validity of research, we are often
referring to these to the many conclusions we reach about the quality of different
parts of our research methodology.
We subdivide validity into four types. Each type addresses a specific methodological
question. In order to understand the types of validity, you have to know something
about how we investigate a research question. Because all four validity types are
really only operative when studying causal questions, we will use a causal study to set
the context.
Introduction to Validity http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/introval.php
1 of 4 12/15/2016 12:25 AM
The figure shows that there are really two realms that are involved in research. The
first, on the top, is the land of theory. It is what goes on inside our heads as
researchers. It is where we keep our theories about how the world operates. The
second, on the bottom, is the land of observations. It is the real world into which we
translate our ideas -- our programs, treatments, measures and observations. When
we conduct research, we are continually flitting back and forth between these two
realms, between what we think about the world and what is going on in it. When we
are investigating a cause-effect relatio.
THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE Almost all reasoning we encounter includes bel.docxkailynochseu
THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE Almost all reasoning we encounter includes beliefs about the way the world was, is, or is going to be that the communicator wants us to accept as “facts.” These beliefs can be conclusions, reasons, or assumptions. We can refer to such beliefs as factual claims. The first question you should ask about a factual claim is, “Why should I believe it?” Your next question is, “Does the claim need evidence to support it?” If it does, and if there is no evidence, the claim is a mere assertion, meaning a claim that is not backed up in any way. You should seriously question the dependability of mere assertions! If there is evidence, your next question is, “How good is the evidence?” To evaluate reasoning, we need to remember that some factual claims can be counted on more than others. For example, you probably feel quite certain that the claim “most U.S. senators are men” is true, but less certain that the assertion “practicing yoga reduces the risk of cancer” is true. Because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the absolute truth or falsity of most claims, rather than asking whether they are true, we prefer to ask whether they are dependable. In essence, we want to ask, “Can we count on such beliefs?” The greater the quality and quantity of evidence supporting a claim, the more we can depend on it, and the more we can call the claim a “fact.” For example, abundant evidence exists that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America. Thus, we can treat that claim as a fact. On the other hand, there is much conflicting evidence for the belief “bottled water is safer to drink than tap water.” We thus can’t treat this belief as a fact. The major difference between claims that are opinions and those that are facts is the present state of the relevant evidence. The more supporting evidence there is for a belief, the more “factual” the belief becomes. Before we judge the persuasiveness of a communication, we need to know which factual claims are most dependable. How do we determine dependability? We ask questions like the following: What is your proof? How do you know that’s true? Where’s the evidence? Why do you believe that? Are you sure that’s true? Can you prove it? You will be well on your way to being among the best critical thinkers when you develop the habit of regularly asking these questions. They require those making arguments to be responsible by revealing the basis for their arguments. Anyone with an argument that you should consider will not hesitate to answer these questions. They know they have substantial support for their claims and, consequently, will want to share their evidence in the hope that you will learn to share their conclusions. When people react to simple requests for evidence with anger or withdrawal, they usually do so because they are embarrassed as they realize that, without evidence, they should have been less assertive about their beliefs. When we regula.
Strict Standards Only variables should be passed by reference.docxflorriezhamphrey3065
Strict Standards: Only variables should be passed by reference in /home/socialresearch/public_html
/kb/introval.php on line 3
Home » Foundations » Philosophy of Research »
Introduction to Validity
Validity:
the best available approximation to the truth of a given
proposition, inference, or conclusion
The first thing we have to ask is: "validity of what?" When we think about validity in
research, most of us think about research components. We might say that a measure
is a valid one, or that a valid sample was drawn, or that the design had strong
validity. But all of those statements are technically incorrect. Measures, samples and
designs don't 'have' validity -- only propositions can be said to be valid. Technically,
we should say that a measure leads to valid conclusions or that a sample enables
valid inferences, and so on. It is a proposition, inference or conclusion that can 'have'
validity.
We make lots of different inferences or conclusions while conducting research.
Many of these are related to the process of doing research and are not the major
hypotheses of the study. Nevertheless, like the bricks that go into building a wall,
these intermediate process and methodological propositions provide the foundation
for the substantive conclusions that we wish to address. For instance, virtually all
social research involves measurement or observation. And, whenever we measure or
observe we are concerned with whether we are measuring what we intend to
measure or with how our observations are influenced by the circumstances in which
they are made. We reach conclusions about the quality of our measures --
conclusions that will play an important role in addressing the broader substantive
issues of our study. When we talk about the validity of research, we are often
referring to these to the many conclusions we reach about the quality of different
parts of our research methodology.
We subdivide validity into four types. Each type addresses a specific methodological
question. In order to understand the types of validity, you have to know something
about how we investigate a research question. Because all four validity types are
really only operative when studying causal questions, we will use a causal study to set
the context.
Introduction to Validity http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/introval.php
1 of 4 12/15/2016 12:25 AM
The figure shows that there are really two realms that are involved in research. The
first, on the top, is the land of theory. It is what goes on inside our heads as
researchers. It is where we keep our theories about how the world operates. The
second, on the bottom, is the land of observations. It is the real world into which we
translate our ideas -- our programs, treatments, measures and observations. When
we conduct research, we are continually flitting back and forth between these two
realms, between what we think about the world and what is going on in it. When we
are investigating a cause-effect relatio.
THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE Almost all reasoning we encounter includes bel.docxkailynochseu
THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE Almost all reasoning we encounter includes beliefs about the way the world was, is, or is going to be that the communicator wants us to accept as “facts.” These beliefs can be conclusions, reasons, or assumptions. We can refer to such beliefs as factual claims. The first question you should ask about a factual claim is, “Why should I believe it?” Your next question is, “Does the claim need evidence to support it?” If it does, and if there is no evidence, the claim is a mere assertion, meaning a claim that is not backed up in any way. You should seriously question the dependability of mere assertions! If there is evidence, your next question is, “How good is the evidence?” To evaluate reasoning, we need to remember that some factual claims can be counted on more than others. For example, you probably feel quite certain that the claim “most U.S. senators are men” is true, but less certain that the assertion “practicing yoga reduces the risk of cancer” is true. Because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the absolute truth or falsity of most claims, rather than asking whether they are true, we prefer to ask whether they are dependable. In essence, we want to ask, “Can we count on such beliefs?” The greater the quality and quantity of evidence supporting a claim, the more we can depend on it, and the more we can call the claim a “fact.” For example, abundant evidence exists that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America. Thus, we can treat that claim as a fact. On the other hand, there is much conflicting evidence for the belief “bottled water is safer to drink than tap water.” We thus can’t treat this belief as a fact. The major difference between claims that are opinions and those that are facts is the present state of the relevant evidence. The more supporting evidence there is for a belief, the more “factual” the belief becomes. Before we judge the persuasiveness of a communication, we need to know which factual claims are most dependable. How do we determine dependability? We ask questions like the following: What is your proof? How do you know that’s true? Where’s the evidence? Why do you believe that? Are you sure that’s true? Can you prove it? You will be well on your way to being among the best critical thinkers when you develop the habit of regularly asking these questions. They require those making arguments to be responsible by revealing the basis for their arguments. Anyone with an argument that you should consider will not hesitate to answer these questions. They know they have substantial support for their claims and, consequently, will want to share their evidence in the hope that you will learn to share their conclusions. When people react to simple requests for evidence with anger or withdrawal, they usually do so because they are embarrassed as they realize that, without evidence, they should have been less assertive about their beliefs. When we regula.
Informal Fallacies
Enterline Design Services LLC/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe the various fallacies of support, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
2. Describe the various fallacies of relevance, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
3. Describe the various fallacies of clarity, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
We can conceive of logic as providing us with the best tools for seeking truth. If our goal is to seek truth, then we must be clear that the task isnot limited to the formation of true beliefs based on a solid logical foundation, for the task also involves learning to avoid forming falsebeliefs. Therefore, just as it is important to learn to employ good reasoning, it is also important to learn to avoid bad reasoning.
Toward this end, this chapter will focus on fallacies. Fallacies are errors in reasoning; more specifically, they are common patterns ofreasoning with a high likelihood of leading to false conclusions. Logical fallacies often seem like good reasoning because they resembleperfectly legitimate argument forms. For example, the following is a perfectly valid argument:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in Paris.
Therefore, you live in France.
Assuming that both of the premises are true, it logically follows that the conclusion must be true. The following argument is very similar:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in France.
Therefore, you live in Paris.
This second argument, however, is invalid; there are plenty of other places to live in France. This is a common formal fallacy known asaffirming the consequent. Chapter 4 discussed how this fallacy was based on an incorrect logical form. This chapter will focus on informalfallacies, fallacies whose errors are not so much a matter of form but of content. The rest of this chapter will cover some of the most commonand important fallacies, with definitions and examples. Learning about fallacies can be a lot of fun, but be warned: Once you begin noticingfallacies, you may start to see them everywhere.
Before we start, it is worth noting a few things. First, there are many, many fallacies. This chapter will consider only a sampling of some of themost well-known fallacies. Second, there is a lot of overlap between fallacies. Reasonable people can interpret the same errors as differentfallacies. Focus on trying to understand both interpretations rather than on insisting that only one can be right. Third, different philosophersoften have different terminology for the same fallacies and make different distinctions among them. Therefore, you may find that others usedifferent terminology for the fallacies that we will learn about in this chapter. Not to worry—it is the ideas here that are most important: Ourgoal is to learn to identi.
Case Study 10.1 Introduction to the Case Study Introduction to.docxtidwellveronique
Case Study / 10.1 Introduction to the Case Study
Introduction to the Case Study
This last chapter is different from the others. Instead of introducing a new area of critical thinking, it is a capstone activity in which you will apply the skills you've learned to one contemporary, controversial issue.
The topic for this case study is global climate change. Because it is beyond the scope of this course to thoroughly evaluate a complex scientific topic, you will not be expected to form a position or offer your opinion on this topic. Rather, the material in this chapter is presented for you to practice evaluating arguments, identifying fallacies, and questioning sources—with the hope that you will continue to apply these skills whenever you encounter material aimed to persuade.
This chapter won't present any new exposition. Instead, we provide some relevant review notes that have been excerpted from the earlier chapters. You can consult these notes if you need a refresher as you work through the final videos, articles, and questions in the course.
REVIEW NOTES
Arguments
To say that something is true is to make a claim. But to give reasons to believe that it is true is to make an argument. Thus all arguments consist of at least two parts:
1. premise – one or more reasons to support the claim
2. conclusion – the claim being supported
Common Fallacies
Fallacy:a type of flawed reasoning
1. Begging the question: fallacy where the argument relies on a premise that resembles the conclusion, depends on the conclusion, or is as controversial as the conclusion.
2. Appeal to popularity: fallacy where the arguer attempts to bolster his or her argument by mentioning that "everybody" (or a large group of people) shares the same belief, preference, or habit.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: fallacy where the arguer assumes that because there is a correlation between two events (i.e., one preceded the other), then the first must have caused the second. The phrase is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this."
4. Appeal to ignorance: fallacy where the arguer claims that because something cannot be proven false, it must be true unless the opponent can disprove the conclusion.
5. Appeal to emotion: fallacy where the arguer tries to persuade the audience by arousing feelings such as pity, fear, patriotism, flattery, etc. in lieu of presenting rational arguments.
6. Unqualified authority: fallacy where the arguer tries to get people to agree by appealing to the reputation of someone who is not an expert in the field or otherwise qualified to prove that something is true.
7. Ad hominem: fallacy where the arguer attacks his or her opponent's personal characteristics, qualifications, or circumstances instead of the argument presented. The phrase is Latin for "to the man."
8. False dichotomy: fallacy where the arguer inaccurately portrays a circumstance as having a limited number of possible outcomes, thus setting up an either-or situation with the intent of prese ...
Evaluating an Argument1. ClaimDebatable statement- forms main .docxSANSKAR20
Evaluating an Argument
1. Claim
Debatable statement- forms main point of argument.
What do you think?
State the claim
Is the claim a logical conclusion based on the reasons, evidence and warrants? Is the claim a logical fallacy?
2. Reasons
Arguments that support the main claim.
“Because clauses…”
Why do you think so?
State the Reasons
Do the reasons directly relate and support the claim? Logical fallacies?
3. Evidence
Personal experience, facts and statistics that support sub-claims.
How do you know you’re right?
State the Evidence
How does the evidence support the reasons and claim? Errors in logic?
4. Warrants
Usually unstated – connects the evidence and reasons to the claim. Why do you think your Reasons support your Claim?
State the Warrants -
Do the warrants follow logically to the claim? Errors? Flaws?
5. Logical Fallacies
Common Mistakes in thinking that may lead to wrong conclusions or distort evidence.
Is the argument built upon flawed thinking?
Identify Logical Fallacies
How do the fallacies distort the argument?
Evaluating an Argument
Using the five parts of an argument
Part 1 – Claim [who should do what?]
What is the “debatable statement” that forms the main point of the argument?
What does Camel “think?”
“X” asserts that __________
Part 2 – Reasons [because clauses]
Why should one accept the claim?
Reasons are statements that, taken together, give readers a basis for accepting the claim.
Camel asserts that ___________ should __________ because ________________ and _________________.
Part 3 – Evidence
[How do you know your reasons are true?]
How does the arguer know she is right?
Sources of evidence: personal experiences,
Outside authorities, facts, studies, statistics, etc.
Evidence is not debatable – its interpretation is!
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company encourages smokers to choose Camel Cigarettes because more doctors choose Camel cigarettes, Camel uses “rich, full-flavor” tobacco, and Camel cigarettes are soothing to a smoker’s throat and taste buds.
Evidence – Doctor Survey (113, 597 were surveyed)
What persuasive appeal is being used here?
Part 4 Warrants (unstated assumptions)
Why do you think your Reasons support the Claim?
Each reason has its own warrant:
Choose Camels because:
1. More doctors chose Camels in a national survey – Assumption _________________
2. Camel uses costlier tobacco – Assumption _________________________________
3. T-zone: Taste and Throat “proving ground” Assumption _______________________
Part 5 – Look for Logical Fallacies
See Bedford p. 180-181
Evaluate the Argument
1. Are the warrants logical?
2. Does the evidence support the reasons and claim?
3. Is the claim a reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence?
4. How would you rate the effectiveness of this argument?
ENG 101
Evaluating an Argument
Overview – Choose an opinion you currently hold – one that is not a central value in your life, but an opinion that you tacitl ...
Chapter 9Practicing Effective CriticismThe principles of cha.docxchristinemaritza
Chapter 9
Practicing Effective Criticism
The principles of charity and accuracy govern the interpretation of arguments—they help you decide what the argument actually is. But once you have figured out what the argument is, you will want to evaluate it. In general, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of arguments or other works is known as criticism. In everyday language, criticism is often assumed to be negative—to criticize something is to say what is wrong with it. In the case of argumentation, however, criticism means to provide a more general analysis and evaluation of both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. This section will focus on what constitutes good criticism and how you can criticize in a productive manner. Understanding how to properly critique an argument will also help you make your own arguments more effective.
When criticizing arguments, it is important to note both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. Very few arguments are so bad that they have nothing at all to recommend them. Likewise, very few arguments are so perfect that they cannot be improved. Focusing only on an argument’s weaknesses or only on its strengths can make you seem biased. By noting both, you will not only be seen as less biased, you will also gain a better appreciation of the true state of the argument.
As we have seen, logical arguments are composed of premises and conclusions and the relation of inference between these. If an argument fails to establish its conclusion, then the problem might lie with one of the premises or with the inference drawn. So objections to arguments are mostly objections to premises or to inferences. A handy way of remembering this comes by way of the philosophical lore that all objections reduce to either “Oh yeah?” or “So what?” (Sturgeon, 1986).
Oh Yeah? Criticizing Premises
The “Oh yeah?” objection is made against a premise. A response of “Oh yeah?” means that the responder disagrees with what has been said, so it is an objection that a premise is either false or insufficiently supported.
Of course, if you are going to object to a premise, you really need to do more than just say, “Oh yeah?” At the very least, you should be prepared to say why you disagree with the premise. Whoever presented the argument has put the premise forward as true, and if all you can do is simply gainsay the person, then the discussion is not going to progress much. You need to support your objection with reasons for doubting the premise. The following is a list of questions that will help you not only methodically criticize arguments but also appreciate why your arguments receive negative criticism.
Is it central to the argument? The first thing to consider in questioning a premise is whether it is central to the argument. In other words, you should ask, “What would happen to the argument if the premise were wrong?” As noted in Chapter 5, inductive arguments can often remain fairly strong even if some of their premises turn ...
Paper format The format must include 1. SummaryAbstrac.docxbunyansaturnina
Paper format:
The format must include:
1. Summary/Abstract (one paragraph, <1 page)
2. Introduction: Briefly describe the background and
significance that lead to research about the enzyme/protein
3. Main body of the text: describe various aspects of the
enzyme/protein
4. References (list the papers you cited in Introduction and
Main body).
Length: not exceed 10 (excluding references and large figures),
double-spaced, typed pages,
with the font size 12 and 1” margin at each side.
Main body of the text must include, but not limited to, the
following elements:
1. Show the complete DNA sequence of the gene that encodes
the protein of your choice (e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed).
2. Show the deduced amino acid sequence encoded by the gene;
3. Describe the enzymatic reaction and metabolic function of the
protein.
4. Describe how the enzyme/protein is regulated, such as long-
term, short-term regulation, cofactors, etc.
5. Describe what is known about the cellular and physiological
processes that the protein/gene impacts.
6. Discuss the potential implication and applications of the
enzyme/protein to human nutrition, health, or disease, or in
plant growth/agricultural application.
7. Provide your evaluation of current knowledge gaps about the
enzyme/protein; Identify an area/problem on which further study
is needed
8. Propose one experiment/study that you may use to address the
problem you have identified in #7, including brief
approach(es)/method(s) you might use.
Term-paper due: MAR 28, 2017
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed
2.1 Arguments in Logic
Chapter 1 provisionally defined argument as a methodical defense of a position. We referred to this as the commonsense understanding of the way the word argument is employed in logic. The commonsense definition is very useful in helping us recognize a unique form of expression in ordinary human communication. It is part of the human condition to differ in opinion with another person and, in response, to attempt to change that person’s opinion. We may attempt, for example, to provide good reasons for seeing a particular movie or to show that our preferred kind of music is the best. Or we may try to show others that smoking or heavy drinking is harmful. As you will see, these are all arguments in the commonsense understanding of the term.
In Chapter 1 we also distinguished the commonsense understanding of argument from the meaning of argument in ordinary use. Arguments in ordinary use require an exchange between at least two people. As clarified in Chapter 1, commonsense arguments do not necessarily involve a dialogue and therefore do not involve an exchange. In fact, one could develop a methodical defense of a position—that is, a commonsense argument—in solitude, simply to examine what it would require to advocate for a particular position. In contrast, arguments, as understoo.
Chapter 23 What were the stock market crash and the following Depr.docxromeliadoan
Chapter 23: What were the stock market crash and the following Depression like? What were the causes of the Depression and what effect did it have on the ordinary citizens as well as businesses?
Your initial answer to the question should be between
250 - 300
words long. Include references and citations
.
Chapter 2The following is provided for use in answering the ne.docxromeliadoan
Chapter 2
The following is provided for use in answering the next set of questions. You may also find table 2.5 on page 53 of your text and all questions on pages 56–57.
TABLE 2.5 2009–2013 Financial Statement Data and Stock Price Data for Mydeco Corp.
Mydeco Corp. 2009–2013
(All data as of fiscal year end; in $ million)
Income Statement
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Revenue
Cost of Goods Sold
404.3
(188.3)
363.8
(173.8)
424.6
(206.2)
510.7
(246.8)
604.1
(293.4)
Gross Profit
Sales and Marketing
Administration
Depreciation and Amortization
216.0
(66.7)
(60.6)
(27.3)
190.0
(66.4)
(59.1)
(27.0)
218.4
(82.8)
(59.4)
(34.3)
263.9
(102.1)
(66.4)
(38.4)
310.7
(120.8)
(78.5)
(38.6)
EBIT
Interest Income (Expense)
61.4
(33.7)
37.5
(32.9)
41.9
(32.2)
57.0
(37.4)
72.8
(39.4)
Pretax Income
Income Tax
27.7
(9.7)
4.6
(1.6)
9.7
(3.4)
19.6
(6.9)
33.4
(11.7)
Net Income
Shares outstanding (millions)
Earnings per share
18.0
55.0
$0.33
3.0
55.0
$0.05
6.3
55.0
$0.11
12.7
55.0
$0.23
21.7
55.0
$0.39
Balance Sheet
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Assets
Cash
Accounts Receivable
Inventory
48.8
88.6
33.7
68.9
69.8
30.9
86.3
69.8
28.4
77.5
76.9
31.7
85.0
86.1
35.3
Total Current Assets
Net Property, Plant, and Equip.
Goodwill and Intangibles
171.1
245.3
361.7
169.6
169.6
243.3
184.5
309
361.7
186.1
345.6
361.7
206.4
347.0
361.7
Total Assets
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Accounts Payable
Accrued Compensation
778.1
18.7
6.7
774.6
17.9
6.4
855.2
22.0
7.0
893.4
26.8
8.1
915.1
31.7
9.7
Total Current Liabilities
Long-term Debt
25.4
500.0
24.3
500.0
29.0
575.0
34.9
600.0
41.4
600.0
Total Liabilities
Stockholders’ Equity
525.4
252.7
524.3
250.3
604.0
251.2
634.9
258.5
641.4
273.7
Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
778.1
774.6
855.2
893.4
915.1
Statement of Cash Flows
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Net Income
Depreciation and Amortization
Chg. in Accounts Receivable
Chg. in Inventory
Chg. in Payables and Accrued Comp.
18.0
27.3
3.9
(2.9)
2.2
3.0
27.0
18.8
2.8
(1.1)
6.3
34.3
(0.0)
2.5
4.7
12.7
38.4
(7.1)
(3.3)
5.9
21.7
38.6
(9.2)
(3.6)
6.5
Cash from Operations
Capital Expenditures
48.5
(25.0)
50.5
(25.0)
47.8
(100.0)
46.6
(75.0)
54.0
(40.0)
Cash from Investing Activities
Dividends Paid
Sale (or purchase) of stock
Debt Issuance (Pay Down)
(25.0)
(5.4)
—
—
(25.0)
(5.4)
—
—
(100.0)
(5.4)
—
75.0
(75.0)
(5.4)
—
25.0
(40.0)
(6.5)
—
—
Cash from Financing Activities
(5.4)
(5.4)
69.6
19.6
(6.5)
Change in Cash
18.1
20.1
17.4
(8.8)
7.5
Mydeco Stock Price
$7.92
$3.30
$5.25
$8.71
$10.89
29.
In fiscal year 2011, Starbucks Corporation (SBUX) had revenue of $11.70 billion, gross profit of $6.75 billion, and net income of $1.25 billion. Peet’s Coffee and Tea (PEET) had revenue of $372 million, gross profit of $72.7 million, and net income of $17.8 million.
a. Compare the gross margins for Starbucks and Peet’s.
b. Compare the net profit margins for Starbucks and Peet’s.
c. Which firm was more profitable in 2011?
31.
See
Table 2.5
showing financial .
More Related Content
Similar to 7The Argument Component of your Mental MapKeywordsargu
Informal Fallacies
Enterline Design Services LLC/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe the various fallacies of support, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
2. Describe the various fallacies of relevance, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
3. Describe the various fallacies of clarity, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
We can conceive of logic as providing us with the best tools for seeking truth. If our goal is to seek truth, then we must be clear that the task isnot limited to the formation of true beliefs based on a solid logical foundation, for the task also involves learning to avoid forming falsebeliefs. Therefore, just as it is important to learn to employ good reasoning, it is also important to learn to avoid bad reasoning.
Toward this end, this chapter will focus on fallacies. Fallacies are errors in reasoning; more specifically, they are common patterns ofreasoning with a high likelihood of leading to false conclusions. Logical fallacies often seem like good reasoning because they resembleperfectly legitimate argument forms. For example, the following is a perfectly valid argument:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in Paris.
Therefore, you live in France.
Assuming that both of the premises are true, it logically follows that the conclusion must be true. The following argument is very similar:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in France.
Therefore, you live in Paris.
This second argument, however, is invalid; there are plenty of other places to live in France. This is a common formal fallacy known asaffirming the consequent. Chapter 4 discussed how this fallacy was based on an incorrect logical form. This chapter will focus on informalfallacies, fallacies whose errors are not so much a matter of form but of content. The rest of this chapter will cover some of the most commonand important fallacies, with definitions and examples. Learning about fallacies can be a lot of fun, but be warned: Once you begin noticingfallacies, you may start to see them everywhere.
Before we start, it is worth noting a few things. First, there are many, many fallacies. This chapter will consider only a sampling of some of themost well-known fallacies. Second, there is a lot of overlap between fallacies. Reasonable people can interpret the same errors as differentfallacies. Focus on trying to understand both interpretations rather than on insisting that only one can be right. Third, different philosophersoften have different terminology for the same fallacies and make different distinctions among them. Therefore, you may find that others usedifferent terminology for the fallacies that we will learn about in this chapter. Not to worry—it is the ideas here that are most important: Ourgoal is to learn to identi.
Case Study 10.1 Introduction to the Case Study Introduction to.docxtidwellveronique
Case Study / 10.1 Introduction to the Case Study
Introduction to the Case Study
This last chapter is different from the others. Instead of introducing a new area of critical thinking, it is a capstone activity in which you will apply the skills you've learned to one contemporary, controversial issue.
The topic for this case study is global climate change. Because it is beyond the scope of this course to thoroughly evaluate a complex scientific topic, you will not be expected to form a position or offer your opinion on this topic. Rather, the material in this chapter is presented for you to practice evaluating arguments, identifying fallacies, and questioning sources—with the hope that you will continue to apply these skills whenever you encounter material aimed to persuade.
This chapter won't present any new exposition. Instead, we provide some relevant review notes that have been excerpted from the earlier chapters. You can consult these notes if you need a refresher as you work through the final videos, articles, and questions in the course.
REVIEW NOTES
Arguments
To say that something is true is to make a claim. But to give reasons to believe that it is true is to make an argument. Thus all arguments consist of at least two parts:
1. premise – one or more reasons to support the claim
2. conclusion – the claim being supported
Common Fallacies
Fallacy:a type of flawed reasoning
1. Begging the question: fallacy where the argument relies on a premise that resembles the conclusion, depends on the conclusion, or is as controversial as the conclusion.
2. Appeal to popularity: fallacy where the arguer attempts to bolster his or her argument by mentioning that "everybody" (or a large group of people) shares the same belief, preference, or habit.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: fallacy where the arguer assumes that because there is a correlation between two events (i.e., one preceded the other), then the first must have caused the second. The phrase is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this."
4. Appeal to ignorance: fallacy where the arguer claims that because something cannot be proven false, it must be true unless the opponent can disprove the conclusion.
5. Appeal to emotion: fallacy where the arguer tries to persuade the audience by arousing feelings such as pity, fear, patriotism, flattery, etc. in lieu of presenting rational arguments.
6. Unqualified authority: fallacy where the arguer tries to get people to agree by appealing to the reputation of someone who is not an expert in the field or otherwise qualified to prove that something is true.
7. Ad hominem: fallacy where the arguer attacks his or her opponent's personal characteristics, qualifications, or circumstances instead of the argument presented. The phrase is Latin for "to the man."
8. False dichotomy: fallacy where the arguer inaccurately portrays a circumstance as having a limited number of possible outcomes, thus setting up an either-or situation with the intent of prese ...
Evaluating an Argument1. ClaimDebatable statement- forms main .docxSANSKAR20
Evaluating an Argument
1. Claim
Debatable statement- forms main point of argument.
What do you think?
State the claim
Is the claim a logical conclusion based on the reasons, evidence and warrants? Is the claim a logical fallacy?
2. Reasons
Arguments that support the main claim.
“Because clauses…”
Why do you think so?
State the Reasons
Do the reasons directly relate and support the claim? Logical fallacies?
3. Evidence
Personal experience, facts and statistics that support sub-claims.
How do you know you’re right?
State the Evidence
How does the evidence support the reasons and claim? Errors in logic?
4. Warrants
Usually unstated – connects the evidence and reasons to the claim. Why do you think your Reasons support your Claim?
State the Warrants -
Do the warrants follow logically to the claim? Errors? Flaws?
5. Logical Fallacies
Common Mistakes in thinking that may lead to wrong conclusions or distort evidence.
Is the argument built upon flawed thinking?
Identify Logical Fallacies
How do the fallacies distort the argument?
Evaluating an Argument
Using the five parts of an argument
Part 1 – Claim [who should do what?]
What is the “debatable statement” that forms the main point of the argument?
What does Camel “think?”
“X” asserts that __________
Part 2 – Reasons [because clauses]
Why should one accept the claim?
Reasons are statements that, taken together, give readers a basis for accepting the claim.
Camel asserts that ___________ should __________ because ________________ and _________________.
Part 3 – Evidence
[How do you know your reasons are true?]
How does the arguer know she is right?
Sources of evidence: personal experiences,
Outside authorities, facts, studies, statistics, etc.
Evidence is not debatable – its interpretation is!
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company encourages smokers to choose Camel Cigarettes because more doctors choose Camel cigarettes, Camel uses “rich, full-flavor” tobacco, and Camel cigarettes are soothing to a smoker’s throat and taste buds.
Evidence – Doctor Survey (113, 597 were surveyed)
What persuasive appeal is being used here?
Part 4 Warrants (unstated assumptions)
Why do you think your Reasons support the Claim?
Each reason has its own warrant:
Choose Camels because:
1. More doctors chose Camels in a national survey – Assumption _________________
2. Camel uses costlier tobacco – Assumption _________________________________
3. T-zone: Taste and Throat “proving ground” Assumption _______________________
Part 5 – Look for Logical Fallacies
See Bedford p. 180-181
Evaluate the Argument
1. Are the warrants logical?
2. Does the evidence support the reasons and claim?
3. Is the claim a reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence?
4. How would you rate the effectiveness of this argument?
ENG 101
Evaluating an Argument
Overview – Choose an opinion you currently hold – one that is not a central value in your life, but an opinion that you tacitl ...
Chapter 9Practicing Effective CriticismThe principles of cha.docxchristinemaritza
Chapter 9
Practicing Effective Criticism
The principles of charity and accuracy govern the interpretation of arguments—they help you decide what the argument actually is. But once you have figured out what the argument is, you will want to evaluate it. In general, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of arguments or other works is known as criticism. In everyday language, criticism is often assumed to be negative—to criticize something is to say what is wrong with it. In the case of argumentation, however, criticism means to provide a more general analysis and evaluation of both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. This section will focus on what constitutes good criticism and how you can criticize in a productive manner. Understanding how to properly critique an argument will also help you make your own arguments more effective.
When criticizing arguments, it is important to note both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. Very few arguments are so bad that they have nothing at all to recommend them. Likewise, very few arguments are so perfect that they cannot be improved. Focusing only on an argument’s weaknesses or only on its strengths can make you seem biased. By noting both, you will not only be seen as less biased, you will also gain a better appreciation of the true state of the argument.
As we have seen, logical arguments are composed of premises and conclusions and the relation of inference between these. If an argument fails to establish its conclusion, then the problem might lie with one of the premises or with the inference drawn. So objections to arguments are mostly objections to premises or to inferences. A handy way of remembering this comes by way of the philosophical lore that all objections reduce to either “Oh yeah?” or “So what?” (Sturgeon, 1986).
Oh Yeah? Criticizing Premises
The “Oh yeah?” objection is made against a premise. A response of “Oh yeah?” means that the responder disagrees with what has been said, so it is an objection that a premise is either false or insufficiently supported.
Of course, if you are going to object to a premise, you really need to do more than just say, “Oh yeah?” At the very least, you should be prepared to say why you disagree with the premise. Whoever presented the argument has put the premise forward as true, and if all you can do is simply gainsay the person, then the discussion is not going to progress much. You need to support your objection with reasons for doubting the premise. The following is a list of questions that will help you not only methodically criticize arguments but also appreciate why your arguments receive negative criticism.
Is it central to the argument? The first thing to consider in questioning a premise is whether it is central to the argument. In other words, you should ask, “What would happen to the argument if the premise were wrong?” As noted in Chapter 5, inductive arguments can often remain fairly strong even if some of their premises turn ...
Paper format The format must include 1. SummaryAbstrac.docxbunyansaturnina
Paper format:
The format must include:
1. Summary/Abstract (one paragraph, <1 page)
2. Introduction: Briefly describe the background and
significance that lead to research about the enzyme/protein
3. Main body of the text: describe various aspects of the
enzyme/protein
4. References (list the papers you cited in Introduction and
Main body).
Length: not exceed 10 (excluding references and large figures),
double-spaced, typed pages,
with the font size 12 and 1” margin at each side.
Main body of the text must include, but not limited to, the
following elements:
1. Show the complete DNA sequence of the gene that encodes
the protein of your choice (e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed).
2. Show the deduced amino acid sequence encoded by the gene;
3. Describe the enzymatic reaction and metabolic function of the
protein.
4. Describe how the enzyme/protein is regulated, such as long-
term, short-term regulation, cofactors, etc.
5. Describe what is known about the cellular and physiological
processes that the protein/gene impacts.
6. Discuss the potential implication and applications of the
enzyme/protein to human nutrition, health, or disease, or in
plant growth/agricultural application.
7. Provide your evaluation of current knowledge gaps about the
enzyme/protein; Identify an area/problem on which further study
is needed
8. Propose one experiment/study that you may use to address the
problem you have identified in #7, including brief
approach(es)/method(s) you might use.
Term-paper due: MAR 28, 2017
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed
2.1 Arguments in Logic
Chapter 1 provisionally defined argument as a methodical defense of a position. We referred to this as the commonsense understanding of the way the word argument is employed in logic. The commonsense definition is very useful in helping us recognize a unique form of expression in ordinary human communication. It is part of the human condition to differ in opinion with another person and, in response, to attempt to change that person’s opinion. We may attempt, for example, to provide good reasons for seeing a particular movie or to show that our preferred kind of music is the best. Or we may try to show others that smoking or heavy drinking is harmful. As you will see, these are all arguments in the commonsense understanding of the term.
In Chapter 1 we also distinguished the commonsense understanding of argument from the meaning of argument in ordinary use. Arguments in ordinary use require an exchange between at least two people. As clarified in Chapter 1, commonsense arguments do not necessarily involve a dialogue and therefore do not involve an exchange. In fact, one could develop a methodical defense of a position—that is, a commonsense argument—in solitude, simply to examine what it would require to advocate for a particular position. In contrast, arguments, as understoo.
Chapter 23 What were the stock market crash and the following Depr.docxromeliadoan
Chapter 23: What were the stock market crash and the following Depression like? What were the causes of the Depression and what effect did it have on the ordinary citizens as well as businesses?
Your initial answer to the question should be between
250 - 300
words long. Include references and citations
.
Chapter 2The following is provided for use in answering the ne.docxromeliadoan
Chapter 2
The following is provided for use in answering the next set of questions. You may also find table 2.5 on page 53 of your text and all questions on pages 56–57.
TABLE 2.5 2009–2013 Financial Statement Data and Stock Price Data for Mydeco Corp.
Mydeco Corp. 2009–2013
(All data as of fiscal year end; in $ million)
Income Statement
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Revenue
Cost of Goods Sold
404.3
(188.3)
363.8
(173.8)
424.6
(206.2)
510.7
(246.8)
604.1
(293.4)
Gross Profit
Sales and Marketing
Administration
Depreciation and Amortization
216.0
(66.7)
(60.6)
(27.3)
190.0
(66.4)
(59.1)
(27.0)
218.4
(82.8)
(59.4)
(34.3)
263.9
(102.1)
(66.4)
(38.4)
310.7
(120.8)
(78.5)
(38.6)
EBIT
Interest Income (Expense)
61.4
(33.7)
37.5
(32.9)
41.9
(32.2)
57.0
(37.4)
72.8
(39.4)
Pretax Income
Income Tax
27.7
(9.7)
4.6
(1.6)
9.7
(3.4)
19.6
(6.9)
33.4
(11.7)
Net Income
Shares outstanding (millions)
Earnings per share
18.0
55.0
$0.33
3.0
55.0
$0.05
6.3
55.0
$0.11
12.7
55.0
$0.23
21.7
55.0
$0.39
Balance Sheet
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Assets
Cash
Accounts Receivable
Inventory
48.8
88.6
33.7
68.9
69.8
30.9
86.3
69.8
28.4
77.5
76.9
31.7
85.0
86.1
35.3
Total Current Assets
Net Property, Plant, and Equip.
Goodwill and Intangibles
171.1
245.3
361.7
169.6
169.6
243.3
184.5
309
361.7
186.1
345.6
361.7
206.4
347.0
361.7
Total Assets
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Accounts Payable
Accrued Compensation
778.1
18.7
6.7
774.6
17.9
6.4
855.2
22.0
7.0
893.4
26.8
8.1
915.1
31.7
9.7
Total Current Liabilities
Long-term Debt
25.4
500.0
24.3
500.0
29.0
575.0
34.9
600.0
41.4
600.0
Total Liabilities
Stockholders’ Equity
525.4
252.7
524.3
250.3
604.0
251.2
634.9
258.5
641.4
273.7
Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
778.1
774.6
855.2
893.4
915.1
Statement of Cash Flows
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Net Income
Depreciation and Amortization
Chg. in Accounts Receivable
Chg. in Inventory
Chg. in Payables and Accrued Comp.
18.0
27.3
3.9
(2.9)
2.2
3.0
27.0
18.8
2.8
(1.1)
6.3
34.3
(0.0)
2.5
4.7
12.7
38.4
(7.1)
(3.3)
5.9
21.7
38.6
(9.2)
(3.6)
6.5
Cash from Operations
Capital Expenditures
48.5
(25.0)
50.5
(25.0)
47.8
(100.0)
46.6
(75.0)
54.0
(40.0)
Cash from Investing Activities
Dividends Paid
Sale (or purchase) of stock
Debt Issuance (Pay Down)
(25.0)
(5.4)
—
—
(25.0)
(5.4)
—
—
(100.0)
(5.4)
—
75.0
(75.0)
(5.4)
—
25.0
(40.0)
(6.5)
—
—
Cash from Financing Activities
(5.4)
(5.4)
69.6
19.6
(6.5)
Change in Cash
18.1
20.1
17.4
(8.8)
7.5
Mydeco Stock Price
$7.92
$3.30
$5.25
$8.71
$10.89
29.
In fiscal year 2011, Starbucks Corporation (SBUX) had revenue of $11.70 billion, gross profit of $6.75 billion, and net income of $1.25 billion. Peet’s Coffee and Tea (PEET) had revenue of $372 million, gross profit of $72.7 million, and net income of $17.8 million.
a. Compare the gross margins for Starbucks and Peet’s.
b. Compare the net profit margins for Starbucks and Peet’s.
c. Which firm was more profitable in 2011?
31.
See
Table 2.5
showing financial .
Chapter 12, page 343, P6Find the real return on the following inve.docxromeliadoan
Chapter 12, page 343, P6
Find the real return on the following investments.
STOCK
NOMINAL RETURN
INFLATION
A
10%
3%
B
15%
8%
C
– 5%
2%
Stock A- 10%-?%=?%
Stock B- 15%-?%=?%
Stock C- 5%-?%=?%
Chapter 12, page 343, P8
8. The countries of Stabilato and Variato have the following average returns and standard deviations for their stocks, bond, and short-term government securities. What range of returns should you expect to earn 95 percent of the time for each asset class if you invested in Stabilato’s securities? From investing in Variato’s securities?
STABILATO ASSET
AVERAGE RETRUN
STAVDARD DEVIATION
95% Range
Average +1/-2)
Stocks
8%
3%
41
-11
Bonds
5%
2%
?
?
Short-term government debt
3%
1%
?
?
VARIATO AVERAGE STANDARD
95% range
ASSET RETURN DEVIATION
(average +1/-2)
Stocks 15% 13%
41
-11
Bonds 10% 8%
?
?
Short- term government debt 6% 3%
?
?
.
Chapter 17 Chile The democratic socialist alternative.How were.docxromeliadoan
Chapter 17: Chile: The democratic socialist alternative.
How were women affected by Chile's 20th century economic changes, and how did they affect Chilean politics?
What role did the United States play in the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende regime?....Why?
Chapter 18: Twilight of the tyrants: Revolution and prolonged war in Central America.
1. How did successive U.S. interventions in Nicaraguan affairs during the 20th century affect Nicaraguan national development?
2. After an investment of more than $4 billion in U.S. military and economic aid to the Salvadoran government, the war in El Salvador ended in an impasse. Summarize the historical background of the war and suggest reasons for the failure of U.S. policy in El Salvador.
At least 150 words answer for each question
MLA
.
Chapter 15 Cuba The revolutionary socialist alternat.docxromeliadoan
Chapter 15: Cuba: The revolutionary socialist alternative to populism.
Discuss the causes of the 1933 Cuban Revolution, and how it laid the political foundation for Cuban populism
How did U.S. intervention in Cuba affect the development of Cuban national identity?
Chapter 16: Storm over the Andes: Indigenous rights and the corporatist military alternative.
Why did military officers, a class commonly regarded as the staunchest defenders of the old order in Latin America, lead revolutions in the Andean republics of Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador?
How did the military's "corporatism" aim to promote the rise of an autonomous native capitalism?
.
Chapter 13 speaks at length on the topic of Sexual Harassment b.docxromeliadoan
Chapter 13 speaks at length on the topic of
Sexual Harassment
because it is an obvious example of an abuse of power. Most examples of this are not overtly obvious.
Problems today are likely to surface around more subtle forms of sexual harassment--unwanted looks or comments, off-color jokes, sexual artifacts like pinups posted in the workplace, or misinterpretations of where the line between being friendly ends and harassment begins.
Assume you are standing with a group of co-workers in the office, all huddled around a cubicle. You are all discussing an episode of your favorite show from the previous night, and some of the content is sexual in nature. Everyone in your group laughs, and in a few more minutes, everyone goes back to work. A co-worker was sitting in her cubicle nearby during this conversation. She was not participating in the group, but overheard the conversation and was offended. She decides to file a formal complaint of sexual harassment.
Everyone...what do you think? Should this be considered sexual harassment? add reference
.
Chapter 1 Problems and Exercises Solutions (20 points) 1. Why is i.docxromeliadoan
Chapter 1 Problems and Exercises
Solution
s (20 points)
1. Why is it important to use systems analysis and design methodologies when building a system? Why not just build the system in whatever way seems to be “quick and easy”? What value is provided by using an “engineering” approach? (5 points)
8. How might prototyping be used as part of the SDLC?
Chapter 2 Problems and Exercises
.
Changing the Culture at British AirwaysAnswer the following questi.docxromeliadoan
Changing the Culture at British Airways
Answer the following questions:
What was life like at the âoldâ British Airways? Explain your answer.
What was difficult about making change? Explain your answer.
What factors created the âsense of urgencyâ? Explain your answer.
Who made up the âguiding teamâ and what were their credentials? Explain your answer.
.
Changes in culture and technology have resulted in patient populatio.docxromeliadoan
Changes in culture and technology have resulted in patient populations that are often well informed and educated, even before consulting or considering a healthcare need delivered by a health professional. Fueled by this, health professionals are increasingly involving patients in treatment decisions. However, this often comes with challenges, as illnesses and treatments can become complex.
What has your experience been with patient involvement in treatment or healthcare decisions?
In this Discussion, you will share your experiences and consider the impact of patient involvement (or lack of involvement). You will also consider the use of a patient decision aid to inform best practices for patient care and healthcare decision making.
To Prepare:
Review the Resources and reflect on a time when you experienced a patient being brought into (or not being brought into) a decision regarding their treatment plan.
Review the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute’s Decision Aids Inventory at https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/.
Choose “For Specific Conditions,” then
Browse
an alphabetical listing of decision aids by health topic.
NOTE:
To ensure compliance with HIPAA rules, please
DO NOT
use the patient’s real name or any information that might identify the patient or organization/practice.
RUBRIC
Main Posting
--
45
(45%)
- 50
(50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
40
(40%)
- 44
(44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
35
(35%)
- 39
(39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
0
(0%)
- 34
(34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or gram.
Change Management Strategies Please respond to the followingD.docxromeliadoan
"Change Management Strategies"
Please respond to the following:
Discuss the benefits that may be achieved by accounting for all stakeholders impacted by a change during the development of a change management plan. Provide an example of a change that an organization may experience, with respect to IT, and identify the specific activities that should be planned for an optimal transition.
Describe the role change agents perform in order to ensure a smooth transition of change. Suggest qualities and skills that change agents must have in order to facilitate change efficiently.
.
Ch. 5 The Police History, Structure, and Functions Learning Modu.docxromeliadoan
Ch. 5: The Police: History, Structure, and Functions > Learning Modules > History and Professionalism of the Police
Ch. 5: The Police: History, Structure, and Functions > Learning Modules > Modern American Policing Eras
Ch. 5: The Police: History, Structure, and Functions > Myths & Issues Videos > Issue 2: Who do the Police Represent?
Write
a 700- to 1,050-word paper describing the history of police. Include the following in your paper:
Describe the impact of Sir Robert Peel on American policing.
Analyze the relationship between the U.S. government and the policing organizations throughout the United States.
Explain how this relationship may affect police practices.
Include
information learned from the CJi Interactive activities in your paper.
Format
your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Click
the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.
Faculty Materials
Materials
Reference and Citation Examples
CJi Interactive Multi-Media
.
CEOs are important but not sufficient voices for their companies, a.docxromeliadoan
“CEOs are important but not sufficient voices for their companies, as engagement is created by mid-level employees with serious knowledge of products and less perceived bias to exaggeration” (Jordan-Meier, 2011, p. 94).
Discuss this statement.
Do you agree or disagree, and why?
.
Certain ways an organization can implement Human Resources practic.docxromeliadoan
Certain ways an organization can implement Human Resources practices and growth for best possible outcome
I.
a.
An organization can implement Human Resources practices with the appropriate speed, best possible quality, and ensuring all members of the organization are aware of the process
II.
b.
An organization can implement Human Resources growth by increasing the number of Human Resources job related positions, improving the relationship between management and hands-on workers, and increasing the number of positive employee reviews regarding specific job positions
.
Cesar’s Last Fast movie. .In 1988, Cesar Chavez embarked on what wou.docxromeliadoan
Cesar’s Last Fast movie. .In 1988, Cesar Chavez embarked on what would be his last act of protest in his remarkable life. Driven in part to pay penance for feeling he had not done enough, Chavez began his "Fast for Life," a 36-day water-only hunger strike, to draw attention to the horrific effects of unfettered pesticide use on farm workers, their families, and their communities. Using never-before-seen footage of Chavez during his fast and testimony from those closest to him, directors Richard Ray Perez and Lorena Parlee weave together the larger story of Chavez's life, vision, and legacy. A deeply religious man, Chavez's moral clarity in organizing and standing with farmworkers at risk of his own life humbled his family, friends, and the world.
Please write a reflection paper about the movie 2 pages long. Watch the movie and then write. I need it tomorrow as it is the deadline.
Thanks
.
Cell phones are constantly evolving. There are iPhones, Droids, and .docxromeliadoan
Cell phones are constantly evolving. There are iPhones, Droids, and Blackberries, and more. Who knows what the future will bring? Using the resources listed and your own research the affects of technology disposal. Given the worldwide demand for increasingly more sophisticated and advanced phones, what should be done to protect the air and water from toxic byproducts due to their disposal?
Write a 2-3 page paper about this issue. Masters qualitys APA citations, 12 font times new roman
.
Cellular respiration and photosynthesis form a critical cycle of ene.docxromeliadoan
Cellular respiration and photosynthesis form a critical cycle of energy and matter that supports the continued existence of life on Earth. Describe the stages of cellular respiration and photosynthesis and their interaction and interdependence including raw materials, products, and amount of ATP or glucose produced during each phase. How is each linked to specific organelles within the eukaryotic cell? What has been the importance and significance of these processes and their cyclic interaction to the evolution and diversity of life?
At least 1200 words
APA format
.
Cellular reproduction in Eukaryotes involves either mitosis or, in t.docxromeliadoan
Cellular reproduction in Eukaryotes involves either mitosis or, in the case of sex cells, meiosis. Mitosis involves the reproduction of a cell into two identical daughter cells. Meiosis, however, is a reduction division where a parental diploid cell produces four haploid gametes. Upon fusion, two haploid gametes (in humans the sperm and the egg) will result in one diploid zygote. In this activity you will track chromosomes through meiosis using colored beads.
.
Cellular Communication Autocrine, Paracrine or EndocrineAs you a.docxromeliadoan
Cellular Communication: Autocrine, Paracrine or Endocrine?
As you are learning, your body and the bodies of all organisms are highly complex, comprised of many different types of cells, each with a vital function that is required for the body’s survival. There are mechanisms that act like lines of communication, allowing different cells to communicate. Messenger molecules serve to coordinate signals between cells and between organs and are described as having autocrine (internal), paracrine (local) or endocrine (system-wide) functions. Without these messenger molecules, how else does your liver know when to produce important proteins for homeostasis? How does your heart know when to beat faster and then slow down? How do your lungs know when to breathe faster? The communications between your brain and organs, and between the different organs must be tightly regulated and controlled.
For this discussion board, select two types of messengers that our body uses to communicate between organs or between different cell types.
Describe the messengers.
Discuss where the messengers are made and what is their function.
Are the messengers part of an autocrine, paracrine or endocrine pathway?
What would happen if the messengers you have selected were inactive?
.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
7The Argument Component of your Mental MapKeywordsargu
1. 7
The Argument Component of your Mental Map
Keywords
arguments; certainty; generalization; mental map; variation
amongst knowledge claims
Having presented the key to the mental map (a set of tools for
thinking), we now briefly introduce the mental map
components, before focusing in detail on the first component:
the match between claims and warranting in arguments. How do
the components relate to the tools? The authors whose work you
study will have employed the tools for thinking in order to
develop a convincing argument. The four components of the
mental map will help you evaluate a range of factors that
contribute to the content and robustness of that argument (
Table 7.1
).
In short, your mental map will enable you to home in on what
authors were trying to do, why and with what success. In this
chapter, we discuss the component that focuses on the match
between authors’ claims and the quality of the evidence
supporting them.
Two dimensions of variation among knowledge claims
In
Part One
, we saw that an argument is constructed from one or more
claims to knowledge
– assertions that something is, or normatively should be, true.
2. Table 7.1 Components of the mental map
Mental map component
Aspect of authors’ argument that it helps you examine Two
dimensions of variation amongst
Two
dimensions of variation amongst knowledge claims
about the social world, affecting their vulnerability to criticism
Authors’ tentativeness or certainty about their claims and their
willingness to generalize, relative to the amount of appropriate
evidence available
Three
kinds of knowledge
that are generated by reflecting on, investigating and taking
action in the social world
The basis of their claims, as relevant to theory, new research
evidence or experience
Four
types of literature
that inform understanding and practice
Whether the account aims to inform theory, research knowledge,
practice or policy, and some common weaknesses that can
render each type less than convincing
Five sorts of
intellectual project
that generate literature about the social world
3. Authors’ reasons for undertaking their work: aiming to
understand, evaluate, change others’ action directly or through
training, or improve their own action
These claims form the conclusion, which is one half of the
argument. The claims are supported by some form of
warranting: the half of the argument that justifies why the
conclusion should be accepted. Claims vary along two important
dimensions, according to the amount of appropriate evidence
contained in the warranting. If there is a mismatch, we see the
warranting as inadequate.
In
Chapter 3
, we saw how warranting can be provided, and be appropriate,
but still be inadequate – not sufficiently convincing for the
critical reader. An inadequately warranted claim often fails to
convince because:
It is based on an insufficient amount of robust evidence to
support the degree of
certainty
with which this claim is made.
The evidence does not justify the extent to which the claim is
generalized
beyond its immediate context.
Or both.
Certainty about a claim
Knowledge claims are made with varying degrees of
certainty
4. and it is possible to question whether the degree of certainty
that the author asserts is justified. The academic literature is not
short of highly speculative claims to knowledge of the social
world, made with enormous confidence that they are certain
truths. Yet, as we have already seen, no knowledge of the social
world can ever be beyond all doubt. It is always appropriate for
the critical reader to ask whether there is sufficient evidence to
support the degree of certainty with which a claim has been
made.
How sure authors are that they really have found out what they
claim will be reflected in the degree of certainty with which
they make the claim. An example of a highly certain claim is:
‘Trainee managers demonstrably learn more effectively when
they are praised than when their efforts are criticized’. Often
the degree of certainty expressed in a claim is left implicit, as
in the version we saw in
Table 3.1
: ‘Trainee managers learn more effectively when they are
praised than when their efforts are criticized’. Removing the
word ‘demonstrably’ means there is no explicit indication of the
high degree of certainty. But the certainty of the claim is still
there: the authors simply state that praise
does
help trainee managers learn more than criticism – not that it
may do so, or that it may sometimes do so in particular
circumstances.
From time to time you will probably come across claims made
with a level of certainty that you feel is unwarranted. Such
claims are vulnerable to being rejected once you scrutinize the
match between the evidence provided in the warranting for them
and the certainty with which they are proposed. The more
confident a claim, the stronger the evidence required adequately
to warrant it. The more tentative the claim, the less the evidence
required, because much less is actually being claimed. As a
5. critical reader, you can scrutinize any argument by first
checking that it actually has both a claim and a warranting, and
then checking the match between the degree of certainty of the
claim and the strength of the evidence offered as warranting.
Remember each time to ask yourself:
Is there strong enough evidence to support the degree of
certainty adopted (or implied) for this claim?
In our example above, the certainty of the claim
could
be justified if the researcher had studied a very large number of
trainee managers and always got this result. Some kinds of
claims are compatible with strong certainty. The claim that ‘the
earth is round’ could be warranted by the evidence that
whenever you fly westwards for long enough you end up in the
east, and that satellite photographs of the earth reveal its
curvature. Little knowledge about the social world is that
certain, so you are unlikely to find experienced social science
researchers stating that their evidence
proves
a claim. You are much more likely to come across authors who
state that their evidence
suggests
or
is consistent with
a claim. They may fine-tune such an explicit indication that
they are not wholly certain by saying
may suggest
or
strongly suggests
.
There are other ways in which authors may signal their own
6. lack of certainty. One is by stating that their claims are
tentative or cautious. A formal means of signalling tentativeness
is through
hypotheses
. A hypothesis is a claim consisting of a proposition or
statement that something is the case but which is as yet
unproven. It will often be predictive (as we saw earlier in
Figure 2.1
), implying that a particular outcome will flow from a particular
action. An enquiry into an aspect of the social world might
begin with a hypothesis, the validity of which is then tested by
checking whether evidence supports it or not. Alternatively, an
enquiry may produce hypotheses as outcomes, amounting to
predictions that could be tested in future. However, many
hypotheses in the study of the social world are so general that
they are not amenable to straightforward testing. For instance,
how could we convincingly test the hypothesis that ‘learning
how to learn is a more effective preparation for adult life than
learning lots of facts’? What would count as sufficient evidence
warranting the conclusion that the hypothesis was supported or
should be rejected?
Generalizing a claim
Claims are also made with varying degrees of
generalization
. The issue here for you, as a critical reader, is checking the
extent to which findings from within the context studied also
apply to other contexts. Some level of generalization is
normally expected in research: one examines a phenomenon in a
limited way in order to find out something that is likely to be
true in other similar circumstances. Generalization, in part, is
about how one judges what counts as a similar circumstance. A
claim about, say, the effectiveness of an approach to supporting
teenage mothers might be made on the basis of studying five
social service units which offer such support in the UK. A
7. judgement must then be made about whether it holds true for all
UK social service units providing such support, and whether it
might be extended to all social service units and other support
arrangements for school-age mothers anywhere.
Frequently, when sweeping generalizations are made, the author
is not explicit about the range of contexts to which the claim
applies. Rather, the extent of the claim is implied rather than
stated, as in our example ‘Trainee managers learn more
effectively when they are praised than when their efforts are
criticized’, which is not only presented with high certainty but
is also implicitly highly generalized. By implication, the claim
is asserted to have universal applicability – to all trainee
managers everywhere, past, present or future. But
generalizations are, in themselves, just claims that something is
known, not proof that it is known. If you scrutinize the evidence
offered for warranting this claim (in
Table 3.1
), you are likely to find it unconvincing. It comes from a survey
of only female trainee managers in just one sector: retail. So, as
a critical reader it is always appropriate for you to check the
match between the degree of generalization of the claims made
and amount of evidence used to back that generalization. Make
a habit of asking yourself:
Is there sufficient evidence to support the degree of
generalization adopted (or implied) for this claim?
As a critical reader, you can scrutinize any argument by first
checking it actually has both a claim and a warranting, and then
checking the match between the degree of certainty of the claim
and the strength of the evidence offered as warranting for the
degree of generalisation.
8. The broader the range of contexts to which a claim is
generalized, the more it may affect the
level of abstraction
. The issue here is the extent to which the intricate details of the
specific context that was directly examined can be set aside, so
that a greater range of contexts becomes eligible for the
generalization. The broader the generalization, the more likely
it is to be at a high level of abstraction, glossing over details of
individual contexts to make a claim about some quite abstract
feature that is supposedly common to them all. The
generalization ‘learning how to learn is a more effective
preparation for adult life than learning lots of facts’ glosses
over the multiplicity of details that may vary between different
contexts. They include learning environments (does it matter if
you have a computer-equipped classroom or just an open
space?), the characteristics of learners (is the claim equally true
of adventurous and quietly reflective learners?) or purposes for
promoting learning (can the learning be for its own sake or must
it be aiming to contribute to society?)
When claims are generalized to many or all contexts, they are
likely to be made at a high
level of abstraction
. The authors abstract – or ‘zoom out’ – from the details of the
context studied, to capture something common to a much wider
range of contexts. The issue here is the extent to which, in this
particular case, the intricate details of the specific context that
was directly examined really can be set aside, so that a greater
range of contexts becomes legitimately eligible for the
generalization.
An assumption underlying any generalized, abstract claim is
therefore that the detailed factors differentiating each context
are not significant enough to affect the applicability of the
claim across a wide range of contexts. As a critical reader
evaluating such a claim, you have to judge how far this
9. assumption is warranted by the evidence presented. (You will
have to take into account all the evidence that the authors
provide, which may include both their own empirical findings
and their account of other relevant literature.) The claim that
‘trainee managers learn more effectively when they are praised
than when their efforts are criticized’ glosses over the
possibility that contextual differences (such as trainees’ gender,
age, work sector, past training experience or cultural
background) might affect how far praise works better than
criticism. The claim also implies that different kinds and
amounts of praise and criticism, or the balance between them,
have no major impact either. The degree of abstraction entailed
in this highly generalized claim leaves it vulnerable to being
rejected, because the authors have not shown that various
contextual differences actually have no significance.
(Contextual factors tend to affect the findings of social science
research. Two researchers, dealing with different contexts,
could easily get different results for this reason. If both over-
generalized their claims, the critical reader might find that each
had predicted incorrectly what the other would find.) Overall,
the more generalized the claim, the more warranting it needs, to
indicate how the claim applies across different contexts.
Conversely, the more specific the claim, the less of such
warranting is needed.
Scrutinizing the certainty and generalization of claims together
Figure 7.1
shows how the degree of certainty and generalization of claims
interact. Each operates along a continuum, thus varying
gradually: either from low to high certainty or from low to high
generalization. The degree of certainty is independent of the
degree of generalization so any combination is possible. The
situation depicted in the bottom right-hand corner of
Figure 7.1
is that of our example: a claim made with
10. a high degree of certainty and a high degree of generalization
. We have already seen how, for such a claim to convince a
critical audience, it must be warranted by evidence which is
adequate to justify the boldness of the claim.
So, as a critical reader, be alert to high certainty, high
generalization claims – whether explicit or left implicit. Not
every such claim will begin ‘It is always the case that ...’, and
the generality or certainty associated with the claim may not be
stated close to the main concluding statements. The signal
might be a brief remark near the end of the text, or something
said or not said in the abstract. Subtler cases might build
certainty and generalization into a new claim, as in: ‘The results
of our study demonstrate that future training policy should
focus on promoting the praise of trainee managers and
minimizing criticism’. Here, the policy proposal is sweeping. It
reflects the authors’ assumption that the study’s evidence
adequately warrants a high degree of generalization and
certainty. Whenever you identify a claim, first evaluate its
degree of certainty and generalization. Then set your
expectations accordingly about the extent of warranting you
must find in the account if you are to accept the claim.
Figure 7.1 Dimensions of knowledge claims and their
vulnerability to rejection
HIGH-RISK WRITING: HIGH CERTAINTY, HIGH
GENERALIZATION
If as a critical reader you require extensive warranting to be
convinced when claims are made with high certainty and high
generalization, the same is likely to be true of the critical
readers who assess your written work. Beware of making such
claims unless you are sure that you have adequate warranting,
whether from your own research or the wider literature.
11. Otherwise your claims will be vulnerable to rejection as
unconvincing. One way of reducing the vulnerability of high
certainty claims is to make them conditional, as in ‘If these
results are reliable, this is definitely the case’. Similarly, high
generalization claims can be made conditional, as in ‘What I
have discovered may also apply in other contexts, to the degree
that this one is similar to them’. But critical readers might then
question why you don’t seem sure that your results are reliable
or that other contexts are like yours. A more effective writing
strategy is to judge for yourself just how reliable and
generalizable you consider your findings to be, and then to
adopt a clear and defensible position along each continuum.
The top left-hand corner of
Figure 7.1
represents
low certainty and low generalization
, where a claim is tentative and is not held to apply to contexts
other than the specific context studied. Such claims have low
vulnerability to being rejected because of inadequate
warranting. Since they are so tentative, only a modest amount of
evidence is needed to warrant them. Further, as the claims are
not generalized to other contexts, evidence can come solely
from the context investigated.
You may already have noticed that a low certainty, low
generalization claim is not vulnerable to the criticism of being
under-warranted precisely because there is not much of a claim
in the first place – a modest claim needs only modest
warranting. But a claim that is both tentative and confined to a
specific context is not likely to be of much interest to most
readers, because they are trying to establish the reliability of
the claim in relation to the contexts that they work in
themselves. Having identified a low certainty, low
generalization claim, you may set your expectations about
warranting correspondingly low. But of course the claim will
12. not be much use in establishing what is definitely known, let
alone how far this tentative knowledge can be applied to diverse
contexts.
So, as a critical reader, be alert to low certainty, low
generalization claims. Telltale signs are qualifiers like ‘it may
possibly be the case that ...’, ‘it might be applicable only here’,
but authors may be more subtle. Sometimes only the absence of
a more confident or generalized claim indicates how limited
specific claims must be. Yet even when the claims are of low
vulnerability, they still bear checking for adequacy of
warranting. Unusually, you may judge that the authors have
been more modest than they need be. Perhaps you know from
your reading of the literature that evidence from other studies
corroborates their findings. Collectively, that information may
enable you, when you come to write, to express a greater level
of certainty and generalization than they did.
UNDER-AMBITIOUS WRITING: LOW CERTAINTY, LOW
GENERALIZATION
As a self-critical writer developing your argument, beware of
playing too safe. You risk your work being dismissed as under-
ambitious and so failing to find out anything important. Critical
readers will be most interested in claims with wide significance
for the area of enquiry. If you are writing a paper for
presentation at an academic conference or your dissertation, you
may be expected to demonstrate robust claims to important new
knowledge. So your claims need to be every bit as certain and
generalized as you can adequately warrant using the evidence
you can produce in support, both from your own investigation
and from other literature. Gathering that evidence, of course,
involves designing a study to take into account from the
beginning your eventual need to make claims with the highest
warrantable degree of certainty and generalization (addressed in
Part Three
13. of this book). But bear in mind that you can also predetermine
the level of vulnerability of your eventual claims to an extent by
careful choices in the way you word claims, since the degree of
vulnerability changes as one moves along the continuum in each
dimension.
We have already noted how the two dimensions portrayed in
Figure 7.1
vary independently. So a claim could conceivably be of low
certainty and high generalization (‘might be the case and
applies universally ...’), or high certainty and low
generalization (‘is clearly the case in this context but its wider
applicability has yet to be demonstrated’). Such claims are
moderately vulnerable to rejection because they are ambitious
along one dimension and play safe on the other. Equally, claims
may reflect other positions, such as moderate generalization.
SIGNALLING THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY AND
GENERALIZATION
Wallace (
Appendix 2
) makes explicit both the level of certainty with which he makes
his claims about effective sharing of school leadership and the
extent to which he is prepared to generalize beyond the few
settings in his research.
Early on, he raises questions about the risks that headteachers
face when sharing leadership and about the justifiability of
headteachers varying the extent to which they share according
to the evolving situation (page 227). He then states: ‘The
remainder of the paper seeks a tentative answer to these
questions … ’. Tentativeness implies a relatively low degree of
certainty over his claims to knowledge.
Later, having presented his findings, Wallace refers (page 234–
14. 5) to ‘… two features of the real world, at least in Britain’.
Further, ‘The research implies that prescriptions for school
leadership should be informed by evidence, and so rest on
principles that are context-sensitive: the approach advocated
will therefore be contingent on circumstances’. He articulates
three such principles for the UK, then claims that: ‘These
principles would justify British headteachers working toward
the most extensive, equal sharing of leadership possible to
maximize potential for synergy, while allowing for contingent
reversal to hierarchical operation to minimize the risk of
disaster’. Wallace generalizes to all schools in the UK but not
to those in other countries, nor to any organizations other than
schools.
In combination, his claims are tentative and are only moderately
generalized beyond his own research settings – to other schools
that he judges to be affected by the same contingent
circumstances. His assessment about the limit of this
generalization reflects his belief that central government
reforms affecting all UK schools (but not, of course, non-UK
schools or any organizations other than schools) played a
critical role in the outcomes he observed. In
Figure 7.1
his position might be located between the upper and lower left-
hand cells: low certainty, but a moderate degree of
generalization.
Claims to watch out for are those embodying recommendations
for improving practice. They tend to make the strongest claims
to knowledge, often combining a high degree of certainty with a
high degree of implicitly or explicitly expressed generalization,
at a high level of abstraction. As you would by now expect, they
fall into the lower right-hand cell of the diagram. Popular ‘how
to do it’ management books typically make high certainty, high
generalization claims along the lines of ‘effective managers are
visionaries who inspire others to go the extra mile to realize
15. corporate objectives’. But whatever the position of a particular
claim along the two continua, it will have some level of
vulnerability to rejection. So, in sum, an incisive way to
evaluate the major claims you come across as a critical reader is
to:
identify the degree of certainty and generalization of claims;
and
check how well this degree of certainty and generalization
matches up with the amount of appropriate evidence employed
in warranting them.
Conversely, as a self-critical writer, you will wish to make your
writing robust to the demands and expectations of the critical
readers of your work. Be cautious about asserting greater
certainty over your claims to knowledge than you have evidence
to support and about making broad generalizations – except
perhaps at a high level of abstraction.
Armed with a sense of how to check for the match between
claims in a conclusion and the warranting used to try and make
them convincing, it is time now to get out of an argument. Let
us move on to describing the other three components of your
mental map.