Category: Philosophy

Create a question with a reoccurring theme. Provide answer for the question. Provide counter answer. This is in essay format. Only two stories need to be used. Euripides V: The Bacchae or Sophoclesi: Antigone or Oedipus the King. Both of these versions are edited by David Grene and Richmond Lattimore.

Cremewriter/bro/homie/writing bud:

these are my teachers’ notes on the case story:

-This seems to be very short and does not really go into depth on most anything.

-I  cannot tell if you used one of the models.  I have read it several times.  Am I missing it?

-You write, for example, “Although rule-based thinking is less applicable, Kant’s philosophy of a universal lawsuit..”  You need to tell me who he is.  Remember, you have the information on our Blackboard and you can use outside research.

-Where is the discussion on David’s professional agency/organization and any possible code(s)?

-In general, be more in-depth with all your paradigms, resolution principles, philosophers, etc.

-This assignment is to show you can put everything together, using all our resources and outside research to fully support your thoughts.

I received a 175/250 which is not fair!!! this was amazing!

Critical Thinking PHI 210

Assignment 2

Part 2 of Part 1

The responses must have LOTS OF EXPLANATION AND DETAIL. Thoroughly respond to all aspects of the questions so that it’s clear so that all of your views have been thoroughly provided. Elaborate more, add more information, and write in complete sentence form, using correct grammar, make sure to proofread, support your position, check the punctuations in the paragraph response and fully explain answers

In Part II of the assignment (due Week 5), you will write a paper to synthesize your ideas.
Part II – Writing Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:

1.    State your position on the topic you selected for Assignment 1.1.

2.    Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons.

3.    Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website.

4.    Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position.

5.    Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases.

6.    Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the “Believing Game,” even if your position on the issue has stayed the same.

The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing:
    Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph.
    Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.
    Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
    This course requires use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The format is different than other Strayer University courses. Please take a moment to review the SWS documentation for details.
    Based on the guidelines in SWS, “A well-researched assignment has at least as many sources as pages.” Since this assignment requires you to write at least 3-4 pages, you should include at least 3-4 references.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
    Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language.
    Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking.
    Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.

One of the most common and important argument form is the appeal to authority. For this discussion, you will discuss this argument form, as well as how to use it to improve your reasoning and your life.

In your initial post:

Give three examples of appeals to authority (they can be from real source or experiences, or you can make them up). One should be very strong, one very weak, and one in the middle. Evaluate the quality of each.
Provide an example of a time in which you or someone you know was fooled by trusting a source that turned out to be unreliable.
Provide another paragraph or two in which you discuss appeals to authority in general, by addressing some of these types of questions: How do we know which sources are reliable and trustworthy? Do you find that there are some types of sources of which people are too trusting? How might we learn to display the proper amount of skepticism and trust in relation to sources? Are people too trusting of media sources, and is there a way to overcome these tendencies? How can we make sure those are the best sources and not be deceived by deceptive ones?

Choose three of the five argument forms and create an example of each. Your arguments do not have to be great arguments (you will analyze their quality below), but they should clearly be instances of the argument types you chose in question (make sure to indicate what argument type each one is).

After each argument, provide a brief analysis of its quality. If it is deductive, is it valid? Is it sound? If it is inductive, is it strong? Is it cogent? (Be sure to read the definitions from the text.) What might be done to improve the argument? What can people do to better understand and apply this type of argument in general?

TOPIC:

Is the cry it out method safe or unsafe for babies?

Introduction
Introduce readers to your topic; include a brief preview of what you will accomplish in this paper. (approximately 150 words)

First Argument
Present the best argument on one side of the issue. (approximately 150 words)
Express your argument in standard form, with the premises listed one by one above the conclusion.

Defense for First Argument
Support the first argument as well as you can, using academic sources to demonstrate the truth of key premises. You may also choose to clarify the meaning of key premises and to explain how your reasoning supports the conclusion (approximately 250 words).

Opposing Argument
Present the best argument on the other side of the issue (approximately 150 words).
Express your argument in standard form.

Defense of Opposing Argument
Support the opposing argument as well as you can, using academic sources to demonstrate the truth of key premises. You are welcome as well to clarify the meaning of premises and/or to explain the reasoning further (approximately 250 words).

Analysis of the Reasoning (approximately 350 words)
Evaluate the quality of each argument, addressing whether key premises are true and whether the conclusion logically follows from them.
Analyze arguments for any fallacies committed or for any biases that may influence either side. Do you feel that one argument makes a much stronger case than the other and why? (There is no need to take sides, only to assess the quality of the arguments.)
Support your analysis with scholarly sources.

Conclusion (approximately 150 words)
Provide a brief conclusion and summary of your issue and how it can best be addressed by critical thinkers.

Assignment 1.1: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay – Part I
Prewriting
Due Week 3 and worth 30 points
When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking by playing the “Believing Game.” The Believing Game is about making the effort to “believe” – or at least consider – the reasons for an opposing view on an issue.
The assignment is divided into two (2) parts.
In Part I of the assignment (due Week 2), you will first read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes: “The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful” at http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/believinggame.pdf. Next, you will review the Procon.org Website in order to gather information. Then, you will engage in prewriting to examine your thoughts.
Note: In Part II of the assignment (due Week 4), you will write an essay geared towards synthesizing your ideas.

Part I – Prewriting: Follow the instructions below for this prewriting activity.  Use complete sentences and adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.
1.  Select one (1) of the approved topics from the www.procon.org Website and state your position on the issue.
2.  From the Procon.org Website, identify three (3) premises (reasons) listed under either the Pro or Con section – whichever section opposes your position.
3. For each of the three (3) premises (reasons) that oppose your position on the issue, answer these “believing” questions suggested by Elbow:
a.    What’s interesting or helpful about this view?
b.    What would I notice if I believed this view?
c.    In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true?”
The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing:
    Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph.
    Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.
    Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
    Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA Style format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
    Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
    Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language.
    Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking.
    Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.

My Note:  http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/believinggame.pdf                  http://www.procon.org