Polemic Assignment Selling Organs
Polemic Appointment Selling Organs
NOTE: There will be a always adapted Discussion Forum on Argumentation that, starting abutting week, will accord editorials from that anniversary that ability appointment to accomplish this assignment.
A Argumentation is an belligerent altercation or accent that takes a position adverse to the mainstream, or to addition specific argument. Your appointment is to booty a bi-weekly beat or an extract from a best editorial, about 700 - 1000 words, and appraisal its arguments point by point. The argumentation should use 1-inch margins, 12 point Times font, be bifold spaced, and be about 1 ½ to 2 pages.
You charge disagree with (not alone disagree; that's your business) with the beat that you accept chosen. It is accessible to pretend that you are autograph to addition who disagrees with you and who agrees with the commodity you accept called to critique. You are answer why the commodity fails to prove its case. Your own acquaintance and opinions alone become accordant in agitation one of the article's points. Appropriately the appointment is somewhat affiliated to assay in a debate.
Although I appetite you to abode every allotment of the editorial, you do not accept to disagree with every affirmation the columnist makes. It can be actually accessible to breach bottomward paragraphs into accepted anatomy arguments, but one of the easiest means to do ailing on the argumentation appointment is to accord an about algebraic analyses of anniversary anniversary apriorism and conclusion, yet somehow absence what the beat is about about. You are artlessly demography an opposing appearance to his/her all-embracing argument, and your appraisal may achieve that a majority of their absolute assertions are correct, but that these facts do not actually abutment the cessation that they accept drawn.
Common sources for accounting assignments: The New York Times, Newsweek, U.S. News and Apple Report, CNN.com's Opinion area (CNN.com/opinion), bounded newspapers (the Mercury, the SF Chronicle, etc.; online versions of best of these are available). Added aboveboard accessory sources such as Mother Jones, The National Review, or websites of left-wing or autonomous organizations can additionally work.
There are abounding means of alignment a adverse argument, depending on how abundant you are antagonistic with. Overall, a acknowledged argumentation accurately identifies the primary altercation at hand, and doesn't get too bogged bottomward in borderline issues. I accept apparent abounding a agitation get aberrate or actually batty because the debaters and the adjudicator (which is me, in our on-campus classes, so back this happens it is my fault) over a few accepted pitfalls. We're activity to name them; this is not simple abstruse stuff, but ample conceptual material, so I apologize if it doesn't bright up the barefaced question: what is the assignment.
Basically, you aces an beat that you disagree with, and you disagree with it for a folio and a half. I brand actual generously, and animadversion actual extensively, on the aboriginal polemic. If you get a bad brand on any of them, it is apparently because you absent clue of what the altercation was actually about, or, best commonly, you got bogged bottomward in aggravating to abnegate every bit of affirmation given, after actually agreeable in argument. We're activity to talking about the use of affirmation throughout the course, but for now, in the ambience of a simple back-and-forth editorializing, this is my aperture salvo:
(1) Whenever possible, advance the author's use of affirmation rather than the authority of evidence; unless you accept aggressive facts available, you apparently cannot auspiciously prove that their facts are wrong. Whenever possible, analyze weaknesses in their altercation that anyone, whatever position they had on the issue, would accept to accept are, in fact, analytic problems. Always abstain anecdotal evidence; claimed belief that allegorize your position but accept no address on the case at hand.
An example; let’s say you were critiquing an beat from the Vegetarian Times that opens with the afterward claim: “A contempo abstraction artlessly compared about called vegetarians and non-vegetarians, and showed that vegetarians alive an boilerplate of 7 years best than non-vegetarians. Accordingly it is bright that not bistro meat helps you alive longer.
Weak Counter-Argument: “My accomplished ancestors is not vegetarian, and bodies eat meat all over the world. Our bodies are fabricated to action meat. So I don’t see how not bistro meat could be healthier, or abroad best bodies would do it.” This is the aberration of anectodal evidence, amid others; bodies all over the apple smoke cigarettes, too; it challenges nothing, although it would address to bodies who already agreed with you.
Better, but risky: “The commodity doesn’t say who did the study. It may be ailing done, may not beggarly anything.” Problem: In the ambience of a debate, this could backfire; what if the debaters on the alternative ancillary found, conceivably on the magazine’s website, a articulation to the aboriginal study, and it was done by a actual acclaimed institution. Now you accept nothing, and your altercation tacitly implies that, if true, the affirmation is irrefutable.
Best: The columnist cited a abstraction presents a apocryphal dilemma, implying that “vegetarian” and “non-vegetarian” are allusive choices. This could be a case of correlation, and not connection. Vegetarians, by definition, accept fabricated a conscious, acclimatized best about their health, and, as the commodity states elsewhere, they tend to exercise added and smoke beneath than the accepted population. Accordingly it ability be these alternative factors—health acquainted affairs choices—that account them to alive longer, and not their diet. A allusive abstraction would analyze health-conscious carnivores to vegetarians, not vegetarians to the accepted population. The abstraction you cited did not do this, and appropriately alike if it is true, it doesn't actually allegorize what you claim.
This is one archetype of the #1 aphorism in arguing: back your action presents affirmation in their favor, you should appoint in the afterward three footfall process: Option 1 (best): Accept their affirmation as possibly accurate (“let's say for the account of altercation that that's true. Alike if it is...), and again appearance how their cessation could still be apocryphal alike if their affirmation is accurate (see aloft vegetarian example). Option 2: Abnegate their affirmation with your own. This takes a lot added work, and in the ambience of a conversation, ability not be possible. Option 3 (worst, and acutely accepted in aboriginal argumentation in this class): Artlessly abolish their affirmation because they didn't actually adduce their source, or because it is apparently accessible that the affirmation ability not be true.
Especially with affirmation apropos circuitous political issues (ie, Obamacare) or amusing issues (ie, racism), studies that are offered as affirmation are about never bang dunks, are about never 100% PROOF of annihilation the way that 2 + 2 = 4. Also, in the ambience of a 700 to 1000 chat editorial, you are not accepted to actually explain the abstraction you are citing, so pointing out that they didn't adduce their sources thoroughly adds annihilation to the conversation. MOST aboriginal argumentation that I accept in this chic abide of advertisement off the arguments independent in the called editorial, and again adage that anniversary altercation is based on affirmation ailing cited and that ability not alike be true. Put yourself in the ambience of the being who disagrees with you, who agrees with the editorialist. Accept you challenged them? If a vegetarian believes that vegetarians alive 10 years longer, and you don't, do you add annihilation to the agitation by saying, “The abstraction alone looked at a sample set that was in the thousands...therefore, all it's abstracts ability be apocryphal about the accomplished population.” Try to abstain this. Try catechism or abolish their affirmation alone back actually necessary.
Order a unique copy of this paper