Homework answers / question archive / The skills you have been practicing throughout the course will be assessed in this paper and conclude with you constructing your own argument on a position

The skills you have been practicing throughout the course will be assessed in this paper and conclude with you constructing your own argument on a position

Business

Share With

The skills you have been practicing throughout the course will be assessed in this paper and conclude with you constructing your own argument on a position. Your argument can be a contradiction, a support, or an alteration of the argument you’ve research. Whichever you choose should be sufficiently supported with materials covered throughout the course and your own outside research.

This assignment should continue with the social issue research conducted in Topic 2

In 1,000-1,500 words

1. Summarize the position/argument researched and assess it for validity. This positions/argument should be presented in a clear logical form. This includes translating their rhetoric into: premises and a conclusion, identifying the category of propositions, and the quality and the quantity of the parts.
2. Identify the assumptions of the position by drawing inferences from its communicated proposition to its position regarding human dignity.
3. Construct a valid and sound argument that contradicts, challenges, or improves the position of the organization.

At least three academic peer-reviewed sources are required for this paper.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Formal instructions for the FINAL PAPER 200 POINTS Benchmark - Social Issue Analysis and Response. This assignment should continue with the social issue research conducted in Topic 2. Use the organization that you wrote about, but build on an argument about your feelings regarding the position the organization takes. The Formal assignment instructions are as follows: Summarize the position/argument researched and assess it for validity. This positions/argument should be presented in a clear logical form. This includes translating their rhetoric into: premises and a conclusion, identifying the category of propositions, and the quality and the quantity of the parts. Identify the assumptions of the position by drawing inferences from its communicated proposition to its position regarding human dignity. Construct a valid and sound argument that contradicts, challenges, or improves the position of the organization. At least three academic peer-reviewed sources are required for this paper. Think BOOKS and JOURNALS not blogs! Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. Use the template for 300 level classes! This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center. Professor Aztlan's Addendum/Tips/Clues for Success: I would suggest that you form an argument based upon your research for the first paper and stay on that topic. Take a position of your own that improves, contradicts or challenges the position of the organization. Place your argument into a thesis. Translate your argument into A,E,I, O categories and make a standard form syllogism of your argument in the introduction/thesis or in the conclusion of this essay. The body of the essay should be a supporting narrative hitting all of the who, what, when, where and whys of your position/argument. Use books and journal sources to support your argument and whenever you throw out an opinion make sure to state that it is your opinion based upon XXXX. Don't make fallacies or other unsupported premises. Form a conclusion to summarize the argument that supports your initial thesis. Then use the following checklist that I’ve compiled for you. Professor Aztlan’s Checklist for success on the Benchmark Social Issue Analysis and Response If you answer YES to each question you will do very well on the assignment. Is the paper 1,000-1,500 words? Is the there a statement of purpose in the introduction? Is this statement of purpose supported in a distinctive and compelling manner? Is there a summary of the position/argument written as a syllogism written in standard form somewhere in the essay? Are the assumptions of the argument identified? Are the inferences of the communicated propositions stated in regards to human dignity? Is the argument rooted firmly in current research? Is the argument presented valid? Does the argument improve, contradict or challenge the position of the organization? Is this improvement, contradiction or challenge clearly stated in the composition body? Does the paper reflect the introduction/thesis clearly throughout the body? Is the argument justified and supported in a logical manner? Has the paper been spell checked and proof read more than once? Are there multiple sources cited? Are there AT LEAST THREE sources that are academic peer reviewed (journals and books - not just websites or the textbook)? Was the paper written using an APA template? Is there a cover page in GCU 300 level proper form? Is there a bibliography in APA form? Now print this checklist out so that you can use it before you submit the paper in Lopeswrite SUBMIT BY THE DUE DATE!!! Course Code COM-362 Class Code COM-362-O500 Criteria Content Percentage 70.0% Summarize the position/argument researched. Including premises and conclusion, identifying the category of propositions, and quality and quantity of the parts. 20.0% Identify the assumptions of the position by drawing inferences from their communicated proposition to their position regarding human dignity. 25.0% Construct a valid and sound argument that contradicts, challenges, or improves the position of the organization. 25.0% Organization 20.0% Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Format 10.0% Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Total Weightage 100% Assignment Title Social Issue Analysis and Response Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Summary of position/argument, including premises and conclusion, identifying the category of propositions, and quality and quantity of the parts is not present. Identification of the assumptions by drawing inferences from communicated proposition of human dignity is not present. Argument that contradicts, challenges, or improves the position of the organization is not present. Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Sources are not documented. Total Points 200.0 Less than Satisfactory (65.00%) Summary of position/argument, including premises and conclusion, identifying the category of propositions, and quality and quantity of the parts is presented but incomplete. Identification of the assumptions by drawing inferences from communicated proposition of human dignity is presented but incomplete. Argument that contradicts, challenges, or improves the position of the organization is presented but incomplete. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Satisfactory (75.00%) Summary of position/argument, including premises and conclusion, identifying the category of propositions, and quality and quantity of the parts is presented but in a cursory manner. Identification of the assumptions by drawing inferences from communicated proposition of human dignity is presented but in a cursory manner. Argument that contradicts, challenges, or improves the position of the organization is presented but in a cursory manner. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Good (85.00%) Summary of position/argument, including premises and conclusion, identifying the category of propositions, and quality and quantity of the parts is convincing and rooted in research but may be outdated. Identification of the assumptions by drawing inferences from communicated proposition of human dignity is convincing and rooted in research but may be outdated. Argument that contradicts, challenges, or improves the position of the organization is convincing and rooted in research but may be outdated. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Excellent (100.00%) Summary of position/argument, including premises and conclusion, identifying the category of propositions, and quality and quantity of the parts is present, insightful and firmly rooted in current research. Identification of the assumptions by drawing inferences from communicated proposition of human dignity is present, insightful and firmly rooted in current research. Argument that contradicts, challenges, or improves the position of the organization is present, insightful and firmly rooted in current research. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Comments All format elements are correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Points Earned Crystal Harves HarvesWeek2SocialFalliciesEssay.pdf Submission Ide: 42cb5298-52b9-4786-9057-d67bcb05d049 Summary ? 943 Words 0% SIMILARITY SCORE 0 CITATION ITEM 46 GRAMMAR ISSUES 0 FEEDBACK COMMENT Internet Source 0% Institution 0% 1 SOCIAL FALLACIES ESSAY Crystal Harves ? Spelling mistake: Harves ? Harvest Grand Canyon University COM-362: Argumentation and Advocacy Richard W. Aztlan April 4, 2021 2 SOCIAL FALLACIES ESSAY Social Fallacies Essay Legalizing abortion has been a widely contested decision in recent decades, attracting the attention of activist groups, humanitarian organizations, and communities globally (Doan et al., 2017). Induced abortion typically refers to the act of terminating a pregnancy before a growing ? Checks that a sentence starts...: fetus ? Fetus fetus gains the capacity to survive independently. Research shows that abortion has been practiced across di?erent cultures at the dawn of civilization, showcasing a long history of antagonism between religion, people, leaders, and individual nations concerning the legalization ? Checks that a sentence starts wit...: and ? And ? Checks that a sentenc...: abortions ? Abortions and abandonment of associated practices. There has been a signi?cant war between the "pro-life" group, abortion antagonists, and the "pro-choice" class, which champions legal and healthy ? Checks that a sentence star...: groups ? Groups ? Checks that a sentence starts w...: when ? When abortions. Furthermore, researchers identify underlying opinion di?erences within the two opposing groups. For instance, a portion of "pro-life" activists assumes that abortions can be accepted ? majority (most, usually) wh...: majority ? most ? Checks that a sentence starts wit...: the ? The ? Checks that a sentence starts wit...: the ? The when individuals are subjected to incest or rape. At the same time, the larger majority associates ? Spelling mistake: Vecera ? Veteran the act with murder. Abortion brought signi?cant legal attention in the United States in the early ? Checks that a...: abortion-righ... ? Abortion-righ... 1970s, when the Supreme Court concluded that women had the right to terminate a pregnancy at the ?nish of the ?rst trimester (Vecera, 2014). Access to abortion could be limited after the ? Checks that a sentence starts...: state ? State 12-weel ballpark, per state-speci?c regulations, or pregnancy risk level. The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) was founded in 1969 to facilitate abortion-rights interventions and promote reproductive freedom. The organization is renowned for using di?erent fallacies to challenge anti-choice groups, promoting women's rights across ? Checks that a sentence star...: course ? Course ? Checks that a sentence st...: mislead ? Mislead state lines (NARAL, 2020). This paper will outline the di?erent fallacies NARAL has previously ? Checks that a sentenc...: pregnancy ? Pregnancy 3 SOCIAL FALLACIES ESSAY implemented in the ?ght for reproductive freedom, explaining their speci?c impacts on the ? Checks that a sentenc...: challenge ? Challenge ? Checks that a sentence starts w...: that ? That course. It demonstrates how the organization leverages the tools to reveal how antichoice groups ? Checks that a sentence star...: access ? Access mislead society. ? Checks that a sentence starts...: women ? Women Overall, NARAL’s central objective is to protect women’s reproductive freedom by ? Checks that a sen...: ideologists ? Ideologists facilitating access to safe abortions, birth control care, parental leaves, and safeguarding pregnancy prejudice (NARAL, 2020). The organization has over 2 million members ?ghting for women's right of choice by promoting community and legal education across di?erent states to challenge anti-choice movements. NARAL has relentlessly battled against the antagonist groups that have passed hundreds of policies that limit women’s access to safe abortion. Typically, anti-choice laws target a complete abandonment of abortion, closure of clinics, and limiting ? Checks that a sentence starts w...: will ? Will ? Checks that a sentence starts w...: uses ? Uses ? Punctuation error: also ? also, ? Spelling mistake: Misericordiam access to abortion services through income lines. "Pro-choice" groups typically argue that women have the freedom to do anything with their bodies. Simultaneously, "anti-choice" ? Checks that a sentence st...: society ? Society ideologists ?nd the acts morally wrong by violating the right to life. Overall, abortion arguments ? Checks that a sentence starts...: every ? Every are quite sensitive because they draw varying reactions based on individual experiences, religious a?liations, and legal rights. ? Checks that a sentence starts with an...: a ? A ? Checks that a sentence starts...: equal ? Equal NARAL argues that “We require pro-choice supporters across all government levels who ? Unpaired braces, brackets, quotation m...: ” will ?ght for American values.” The statement is among the typical fallacies the organization uses to draw Americans into ?ghting for women's rights. NARAL leverages the fact that many Americans value their rights to enhance their support for pro-choice ideologies. The organization also uses Ad Misericordiam, where it integrates compassion into various statements to in?uence ? Spelling mistake: Misericordiam ? Checks that a sentence starts with ...: of ? Of ? Checks that a sentence ...: abortion ? Abortion ? Checks that a...: interventions ? Interventions ? Checks that a sentence ...: abortion ? Abortion ? Checks that a sentence ...: anything ? Anything 4 SOCIAL FALLACIES ESSAY society. For instance, it states, "Together, the organization can build an environment that gives ? Checks that a sentence starts with ...: to ? To ? Checks that a sentence st...: clinics ? Clinics every woman the freedom to make empowered decisions." The statement is a typical example of a fallacy used to guarantee support and inclusion through compassion. NARAL also maintains that "A woman needs to have the right to make independent decisions to be considered as an equal.” The statement is also an Ad Misericordiam informal fallacy arguing that women deprived ? Spelling mistake: Hominem ? Nominee ? Checks that a sen...: anti-choice ? Anti-choice ? Spelling mistake: Greasley ? Greatly ? Checks that a sentence st...: decades ? Decades ? Checks that a sentence st...: between ? Between of pro-choice freedom lose individual and family rights. Likewise, Hasty Generalization is a commonly used informal fallacy used to voice assumptions on "pro-life" ideologies of "undermining people's rights to eradicate access to legal ? Possible agreement error: Each ...: their ? his abortion ultimately." NARAL leverages the fallacies to maintain that “anti-choice groups support ? Checks that a sentence starts wit...: and ? And hundreds of regulations that limit women’s freedoms and capabilities to access abortion ? Checks that a sentenc...: promoting ? Promoting interventions. The group generally seeks to ban abortion, close clinics, and limit access to abortion services.” Finally, NARAL states that “Anti-choice extremists cannot be stopped by anything. They have funded multiple “fake” facilities across di?erent states that mislead women to view abortion as an option. Some extremists have also historically gone far as destroying clinics and killing physicians.” The typical Ad Hominem fallacy draws leaders to disagree with anti-choice ideologists by acknowledging their actions in misleading women. NARAL intensi?es the argument by stating how the groups harm women, physicians, and other involved parties, utterly violating multiple constitutional rights and freedoms (Greasley, 2013). Conclusively, NARAL has relentlessly fought against anti-choice groups for over ?ve decades, leveraging multiple fallacies to raise awareness and mobilize supporters. Despite their e?orts, abortion continues to be a global menace, showcasing a never-ending antagonism between pro-life and pro-choice ideologies on reproductive freedoms and the right to fetal life. 5 SOCIAL FALLACIES ESSAY Each group supports their argument with relevant and informed positions on women's freedoms and the right to life across di?erent pregnancy stages. NARAL has played an instrumental role in promoting women's rights, particularly considering the sensitivity of underlying issues. Nonetheless, the organization could have arguably made a far-reaching impact by outlining its support for pro-choice ideologies rather than merely branding anti-choice groups as "evil." 6 SOCIAL FALLACIES ESSAY References ? Checks that a sentence st...: support ? Support Doan, A., Candal, C. C., & Sylvester, S. (2017). “We Are the Visible Proof”: Legitimizing Abortion Regret Misinformation through Activists’ Experiential Knowledge. Law & Policy, 40(1), 33–56. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12094 Greasley, K. (2013). The pearl of the ‘Pro-Life’ movement? Re?ections on the Kermit Gosnell controversy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(6), 419–423. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101551 Issues. (2020, August 27). NARAL Pro-Choice America. Retrieved from https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/ Vecera, V. (2014). The Supreme Court and the Social Conception of Abortion. Law & Society Review, 48(2), 345–375. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12071 Online Lecture COM_362_Aztlan_T8 1 of 3 LECTURE 7.5 Enthymemes, (en-THa-meme) (Page 264 Introduction to Logic) I suggest working through these using a blank word .doc OR colored pencils and paper. This will make understanding and working through these problems much easier using red for the conclusion’s subject/Minor term, blue for the conclusion’s predicate/Major term and bold for the Middle term as I have advised thus far in the course.. Here’s what you need to know as simply stated as possible: An Enthymeme is an incomplete argument. The missing part is supposed to be common knowledge. Basically stated, you must deduce this missing information, that is missing from a stated argument and then work the deduced information into a standard part of a premise. There are three “orders” of Enthymemes. They can be easily remembered by thinking of how we stack premises in a standard form syllogism. Remember? Major Premise Minor Premise Conclusion A First-order enthymeme is an incompletely stated syllogism in which the proposition that is taken for granted but not stated is the Major premise. A Second-order enthymeme is an incompletely stated syllogism in which the proposition that is taken for granted but not stated is the Minor premise. A Third-order enthymeme is an incompletely stated syllogism in which the proposition that is taken for granted but not stated is the conclusion premise. I like to use the Major Premise and Minor Premise colors we have been using throughout to correlate and thus identify the enthymeme orders by how we stack syllogisms. Major Premise = proposition taken for granted but not stated is the Major premise. First Minor Premise = proposition taken for granted but not stated is the Minor premise. Second Conclusion = proposition taken for granted but not stated is the conclusion. Third Easy right? There is no reason to get confused about enthymemes. There are no new logical principles introduced. You just need to find the missing proposition, that should be easily deduced, and place it in the proper premise position. I would suggest using my standard form steps that we have been using these past few weeks. Richard W. Aztlan, 2021 Do not distribute without permission Online Lecture COM_362_Aztlan_T8 2 of 3 I don’t like the book example because it uses added translation that we haven’t covered. Let’s make our own example based upon the book’s example, but a little simpler for our purposes. Our Example Problem: “The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution makes all people born in the United States citizens simply by birth. Mr Jones was born in Chicago, IL.” Let’s figure out where the enthymeme is and what is it’s order by using my steps. Step 1. Identify the Conclusion. We can’t. There is no premise indicator. HINT: Maybe this is a Third-order enthymeme since there is a proposition taken for granted in the conclusion. So, if we were to translate the example statement into our basic syllogistic categories (A, E, I, O) and using only 3 consistent terms we get the following: All people born in the United States are United States citizens (A) Some people named JONES are people born in the United States (I) this leads us to the missing part of the argument, that is also the conclusion. Some people named Jones are United States citizens (I) So yes, this is a Third-order enthymeme since the conclusion was missing! Now we can stack the other premises into a proper syllogism because we have identified the Major, Minor and Middle terms. All people born in the United States are United States citizens (A) Some people named Jones are people born in the United States (I) Some people named Jones are United States citizens (I) Mood and figure AII -1 Richard W. Aztlan, 2021 Do not distribute without permission Online Lecture COM_362_Aztlan_T8 3 of 3 Now, lets go one step further. Is this a valid argument? Refer to the List of Rules Overview and Flowchart on page 229-230, Introduction to Logic, Sec. 6.4 to see if the Syllogism is valid based upon the six Rules and Fallacies and you can also refer to the “cheat sheet” listed on page 238. Rule 1 Four terms? No. Rule 2 Middle term distributed in at least one premise? Yes. Rule 3 Is a term distributed in the conclusion also distributed in one of the premises? Yes. Rule 4 Are there two negative premises? No. Rule 5 If either premise is negative then the conclusion must be negative. N/A Rule 6 Is the conclusion an I or O category with two universal premise categories? No Our syllogism is Valid. Pretty simple! Try not to overthink these. There is no new Logic to be applied. Check the T8 Announcement to see which answers that I want you to complete on the T8 RE and how to form your answers. Richard W. Aztlan, 2021 Do not distribute without permission