(1) Select a recent Op-Ed from the list below:
- ( kindly check the picture I dragged it's important) - (assignement is short but i added details)
- Earthquake aid is effective only if it reaches the right people ( prefered topic)
- Earthquakes, disease and climate change are threats we must prepare for
- Tech giants laying off their staff simply won't work
(2) Analyze one key argument from your selected Op-Ed. You do not need to submit a narrative essay, answer the prompts below:
(a) Reconstruct the Op-Ed's argument (approx. 200 words)
- Explain whether the Op-Ed makes an inductive or deductive argument.
- Explicitly use the terminology of informal logic (such as premise, conclusion, conditional, connective, quantifier, etc.).
- Make sure to put it in valid premise-conclusion form (P1, P2, ... C).
(b) Evaluate the Op-Ed's argument (approx. 250 words)
- Endorse or reject the argument, explicitly using the terminology of informal logic (such as validity, soundness, and fallacy).
- For deductive arguments, evaluate whether it is valid or invalid, giving support or objections to at least one of the premises.
- For inductive arguments, evaluate whether it is strong or weak, giving support or objections to at least one of the premises.
(c) Develop a counter-argument (approx. 250 words)
- Provide at least one counterargument to your evaluation in Part B.
- Then, respond to your own evaluation using the language of informal logic as appropriate.
(3) Use proper APA style guidelines to cite appropriate, scholarly work (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/). You do not need to do a large amount of outside research for this paper, but must properly cite any research you do.
Assignment Information
Length:600-700 words
Learning Outcomes must be Added ( details and examples to make it easier)
- LogicalReasoning: Analyze and apply inductive or deductive logic. Accurately or effectively analyzes or applies inductive or deductive logic in a way that addresses the relevant problems or goals and demonstrates a deep grasp of the skill or concept by analyzing, explaining, or justifying the application in a way appropriate to the given context.
- Fallacies: Accurately identifies and explains the existence and type of logical fallacy; clearly explains how the fallacy violates proper logic; (when applicable) corrects the fallacy by providing a clear, well supported argument; (when applicable) recognizes a subtle logical fallacy in a sophisticated, logical argument, and effectively corrects it.
- Identify and correct logical fallacies.Human beings are not perfect logic machines. Instead, we are prone to making logical errors—and often do so systematically. There are numerous common flawed patterns of reasoning, typically grouped into two large classes: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies result from errors in an argument’s structure, while informal fallacies contain issues with the content of the propositions in an argument. One can learn to identify and correct the most common sorts of logical fallacies in both inductive and deductive reasoning.ExampleA presidential candidate has proposed a new way to provide health care that involves increases in taxation and inclusiveness, but his opponent says that this approach is socialism and eventually will bankrupt the country. In fact, while the proposal does have 'socialist' components, it is complex and nuanced, with many checks-and-balances. The opponent has committed a “straw man fallacy,” attacking a superficial version of the proposal and thus failing to address the proposition in question. Let X be taxation and inclusiveness, Y be socialism, and Z be bankruptcy. In simplified symbolic form, the politician claims that X → Y, that Y → Z and therefore, by hypothetical syllogism, that X → Z. While this argument is valid, it is unsound because the premises X → Y and Y → Z are not necessarily true. While it might be plausible to argue against socialism in health provision, the opponent extremified the proposition to label it ‘socialism’ and refute it, a false premise that makes his argument unsound. The fallacy could have been corrected by arguing only against the specific parts of the proposal: taxation and inclusiveness.