2. Letter to the editor: “Andrea Keene’s selective morality is once again showing through in her July 15 letter. This time she expresses her abhorrence of abortion. But how we see only what we choose to see! I wonder if any of the anti-abortionists have considered the widespread use of fertility drugs as the moral equivalent of abortion, and, if they have, why they haven’t come out against them, too. The use of these drugs frequently results in multiple births, which leads to the death of one of the infants, often after an agonizing struggle for survival. According to the rules of the pro-lifers, isn’t this murder?”
— North-State Record
I feel that the above question could actually be several different types of fallacies – namely “Poisoning the Well”, “Straw Man”, and “Perfectionist Fallacy.” A “Poisoning the Well” fallacy is defined as “encouraging others to dismiss what someone will say, by citing the speaker’s defects, inconsistencies, circumstances, or other personal attributes” (Moore-Parker, 2007, p. 189). The author discredits Andrea Keene by suggesting her “selective morality.” A “Straw Man” fallacy is defined as “rebutting a claim by offering a distorted or exaggerated version of it” (Moore-Parker, 2007, p. 189). While the effects of fertility drugs are not exaggerated, suggesting that one or more of the infants dies “agonizingly” every time is exaggerated. Finally “Perfectionist Fallacy” is defined as “arguing that we either do something completely or not at all” (Moore-Parker, 2007, p. 189). The author suggests that that even something as seemingly “un-anti-abortionist” as fertility drugs should be outlawed according to abortionist policy.
3. In one of her columns, Abigail Van Buren printed the letter of “I’d rather be a widow.” The letter writer, a divorcée, complained about widows who said they had a hard time coping. Far better, she wrote, to be a widow than to be a divorcée, who are all “rejects” who have been “publicly dumped” and are avoided “like they have leprosy.” Abby recognized the pseudoreasoning for what it was, though she did not call it by our name. What is our name for it?
The above selection is an example of a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. This type of fallacy is defined as “thinking a person’s circumstances refute his or her beliefs” (Moore-Parker, 2007, p. 189). It seems that the original author had a tragic experience of being divorced – the other author is arguing the side of being a widow. Because the two authors have had different experiences, their personal beliefs should not be refuted.
5. Letter to the editor: “Once again the Park Commission is considering closing North Park Drive for the sake of a few joggers and bicyclists. These so-called fitness enthusiasts would evidently have us give up to them for their own private use every last square inch of Walnut Grove. Then anytime anyone wanted a picnic, he would have to park at the edge of the park and carry everything in—ice chests, chairs, maybe even grandma. I certainly hope the Commission keeps the entire park open for everyone to use.”
This letter to the editor shows an example of poisoning the well. The author is discrediting the advocators of closing North Park Drive several times stating “for the sake of a few joggers and bicyclists”, “so-called fitness enthusiasts”, and “their own private use.” By doing this, the author is making the reader be “against” the fitness enthusiasts and breeding animosity.
6. “Some Christian—and other—groups are protesting against the placing, on federal property near the White House, of a set of plastic figurines representing a devout Jewish family in ancient Judaea. The protestors would of course deny that they are driven by any anti-Semitic motivation. Still, we wonder: Would they raise the same objections (of unconstitutionality, etc.) if the scene depicted a modern, secularized Gentile family?”
— National Review
This selection was almost “fallacy-free” until the author stated that “The protestors would of course deny…” This is an example of circumstantial ad hominem fallacy because the author suggests that the Christian groups “would of course” deny any anti-Semitic motivation because they are Christians. The author continues and suggests that there would be no debate if there were a modern Christian scene depicted.
8. From a letter to the editor: “The counties of Michigan clearly need the ability to raise additional sources of revenue, not only to meet the demands of growth but also to maintain existing levels of service. For without these sources those demands will not be met, and it will be impossible to maintain services even at present levels.”
I do not detect any fallacies in this excerpt. There are no innuendos or subliminal persuasion taking place.
9. In February 1992, a representative of the Catholic Church in Puerto Rico gave a radio interview (broadcast on National Public Radio) in which he said that the Church was against the use of condoms. Even though the rate of AIDS infection in Puerto Rico is much higher than on the U.S. mainland, the spokesman said that the Church could not support the use of condoms because they are not absolutely reliable in preventing the spread of the disease. “If you could prove that condoms were absolutely dependable in preventing a person from contracting AIDS, then the Church could support their use.”
This is an example of “Line Drawing Fallacy.” A line drawing fallacy is defined as “requiring that a precise line be drawn someplace on a scale or continuum when no such precise line can be drawn; usually occurs when a vague concept is treated like a precise one” (Moore-Parker, 2007, p. 189). It is common knowledge that condoms, like everything else in life, are not absolutely 100% dependable; however, it is proven that they do help against STD’s immensely. By stating that the Church does not support condoms because they are not absolutely dependable, the spokesperson is drawing a line and creating a standard that will never be met. There will always be a small percentage of failure due to imperfections of materials, improper use, etc.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
IT Communication Assignment: Documentation Conventions
Identify the four most widely accepted style conventions for professional paper documentation. What purpose does each of these conventions serve, and which is most appropriate for technical writing? Explain why.
There are primarily four accepted style conventions for professional paper documentation. The four main style conventions are the American Psychological Association (APA), Modern Language Association (MLA), various Number styles, and Chicago Style.
APA formatting is used in most academic writing and is the most preferred writing documentation style. One of the main stipulations of APA formatting is the use of the author / date system; this is a method of organizing citations in a paper making everything uniform. APA is used for social sciences, biological and earth sciences, education, linguistics, and most importantly, in business.
MLA is a format that is used primarily in writing in the humanities, especially literature and language. MLA is typically simpler and more economical than other documentation conventions.
There are numerous different sub-categories of the number system of citation including the American Mathematical Society (AMS), the Council of Biology Editors (CBE), the American Chemical Society (ACS), and finally the American Institute of Physics (AIP). As the title of each organization suggests, these documentation conventions are all involved with math and the sciences with each writing format being curtailed to the specifics of that organization.
Finally, the Chicago style of formatting is a variant of the APA format and is used primarily for the humanities and fine arts.
The style that is the most appropriate for technical writing would be APA format. While this style is used for education, it is also used for many sciences (both physical and social), languages, and is widely accepted in the business sector – where the majority of technical writing occurs.
There are primarily four accepted style conventions for professional paper documentation. The four main style conventions are the American Psychological Association (APA), Modern Language Association (MLA), various Number styles, and Chicago Style.
APA formatting is used in most academic writing and is the most preferred writing documentation style. One of the main stipulations of APA formatting is the use of the author / date system; this is a method of organizing citations in a paper making everything uniform. APA is used for social sciences, biological and earth sciences, education, linguistics, and most importantly, in business.
MLA is a format that is used primarily in writing in the humanities, especially literature and language. MLA is typically simpler and more economical than other documentation conventions.
There are numerous different sub-categories of the number system of citation including the American Mathematical Society (AMS), the Council of Biology Editors (CBE), the American Chemical Society (ACS), and finally the American Institute of Physics (AIP). As the title of each organization suggests, these documentation conventions are all involved with math and the sciences with each writing format being curtailed to the specifics of that organization.
Finally, the Chicago style of formatting is a variant of the APA format and is used primarily for the humanities and fine arts.
The style that is the most appropriate for technical writing would be APA format. While this style is used for education, it is also used for many sciences (both physical and social), languages, and is widely accepted in the business sector – where the majority of technical writing occurs.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
IT Communication Assignment: Documentation Discussion Question
Why is documentation important in the technical writing process? What positive and negative occurrences have you run into while using different documentation styles?
Documentation is important in the technical writing process because it adds two specific elements to your writing: professionalism and credibility. I feel that technical writing is read by a certain target audience; these are people that are reading your writing to be informed of something. Technical writing is not something that is used to be read casually – it is either written for work which demands professionalism, or it is written for some sort of educational purpose which also demands professionalism.
By using the correct documentation and “giving credit where credit is due”, it also gives your technical writing credibility. No longer is the reader reading the mad ranting of Nick Taylor; now they are reading a form of writing that there has been some form of collaboration on. It changes your writing from being the possibility of being opinion, to factual technical writing.
An obvious positive effect of using documentation in your technical writing is the fact that your writing is suddenly professional, credible, and “legitimate” whereas it might not have appeared so previously.
One negative occurrence that I had before was trying to document everything correctly. It seemed like such a hassle trying to remember every different rule, method, and format – similar to math! However, Ms. Troxler posted a link that I was unaware of that I think might be one of the best resources out there for correctly formatted papers – the Citation Generator. I’ve explored this tool a little bit and it is a life saver. It made my negative of documentation obsolete.
Documentation is important in the technical writing process because it adds two specific elements to your writing: professionalism and credibility. I feel that technical writing is read by a certain target audience; these are people that are reading your writing to be informed of something. Technical writing is not something that is used to be read casually – it is either written for work which demands professionalism, or it is written for some sort of educational purpose which also demands professionalism.
By using the correct documentation and “giving credit where credit is due”, it also gives your technical writing credibility. No longer is the reader reading the mad ranting of Nick Taylor; now they are reading a form of writing that there has been some form of collaboration on. It changes your writing from being the possibility of being opinion, to factual technical writing.
An obvious positive effect of using documentation in your technical writing is the fact that your writing is suddenly professional, credible, and “legitimate” whereas it might not have appeared so previously.
One negative occurrence that I had before was trying to document everything correctly. It seemed like such a hassle trying to remember every different rule, method, and format – similar to math! However, Ms. Troxler posted a link that I was unaware of that I think might be one of the best resources out there for correctly formatted papers – the Citation Generator. I’ve explored this tool a little bit and it is a life saver. It made my negative of documentation obsolete.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Critical Thinking Assignment: Prejudicial vs. Nonprejudicial Statements
How can a person distinguish between the prejudicial and nonprejudicial use of rhetorical devices? Provide an example of each and comment on the examples posted by your classmates.
I think that a person can distinguish between the prejudicial and nonprejudicial use of rhetorical devices by trying to determine the purpose of the message; why is the author telling you this message? Is it simply to inform you of something or is the purpose of their message to persuade you into a certain school of thinking? I think that it can be very difficult to determine if a message is prejudicial or not; I think that people as a whole have their minds made up already about different topics. I find myself going into situations already resolved about the outcome but “allowing myself” to hear the other side of the conflict. Sometimes I am persuaded but often I find my thought process is, “Alright I already feel this way but let’s just see if this other person can make me feel differently.”
Prejudicial statement: Javon Walker is another former Bronco that head coach Mike Shannahan dumped that turned out to be a bum – good thing the Raiders picked him up!
Nonprejudicial statement: While Javon Walker currently got into some trouble, the jury is still out to determine whether head coach Mike Shannahan did a good thing by releasing the player due to character flaws.
I think that a person can distinguish between the prejudicial and nonprejudicial use of rhetorical devices by trying to determine the purpose of the message; why is the author telling you this message? Is it simply to inform you of something or is the purpose of their message to persuade you into a certain school of thinking? I think that it can be very difficult to determine if a message is prejudicial or not; I think that people as a whole have their minds made up already about different topics. I find myself going into situations already resolved about the outcome but “allowing myself” to hear the other side of the conflict. Sometimes I am persuaded but often I find my thought process is, “Alright I already feel this way but let’s just see if this other person can make me feel differently.”
Prejudicial statement: Javon Walker is another former Bronco that head coach Mike Shannahan dumped that turned out to be a bum – good thing the Raiders picked him up!
Nonprejudicial statement: While Javon Walker currently got into some trouble, the jury is still out to determine whether head coach Mike Shannahan did a good thing by releasing the player due to character flaws.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Critical Thinking Assignment: Persuasion
Copy and paste the example into the body of a forum message and include your response to this question: Why does the example affect you, and what is the statement’s persuasive motive?
Open this envelope and you’ll get a check for three million dollars, if your name appears on our list of winners.
This example affects me because this is a classic example of the “read the fine print.” While the catch phrase “…if your name appears on our list of winners” is not literally in small print, the intent is the same. Reading is a progression of left to right, top to bottom; the authors want you to be so excited about reading the phrase “Open this envelope and you’ll get a check for three million dollars” that the last phrase with the stipulation will go right over your head and not even be recognized. This is a ploy that is used in a lot of online pop-up ads and other mailers that you get in the physical mail.
The reason this ad affects me is because it plays on the emotion and rash decisions that people as a whole make. “Wow you mean that I do not have to save up and save for a house with a down payment?! I can just start making payments now and pay 21%?! Wow great; sign me up!” People seem to focus on the carrot at the end of the stick without realizing how far they have to walk to finally get it. In this specific situation, the reader most likely opens the envelope and sees a list of names, then rereads the stipulation, sends in $20 to get their name put on a list, and then receives another envelope without their name on it.
Open this envelope and you’ll get a check for three million dollars, if your name appears on our list of winners.
This example affects me because this is a classic example of the “read the fine print.” While the catch phrase “…if your name appears on our list of winners” is not literally in small print, the intent is the same. Reading is a progression of left to right, top to bottom; the authors want you to be so excited about reading the phrase “Open this envelope and you’ll get a check for three million dollars” that the last phrase with the stipulation will go right over your head and not even be recognized. This is a ploy that is used in a lot of online pop-up ads and other mailers that you get in the physical mail.
The reason this ad affects me is because it plays on the emotion and rash decisions that people as a whole make. “Wow you mean that I do not have to save up and save for a house with a down payment?! I can just start making payments now and pay 21%?! Wow great; sign me up!” People seem to focus on the carrot at the end of the stick without realizing how far they have to walk to finally get it. In this specific situation, the reader most likely opens the envelope and sees a list of names, then rereads the stipulation, sends in $20 to get their name put on a list, and then receives another envelope without their name on it.
Critical Thinking Assignment: Analyzing Credibility
Source 1: CNN – Larry Kind and Rudi Giuliani Interview
Source 2: Volkswagen David Hasselhoff TV Spot
Answer the following in regard to each of the two examples in a 100- to 200-word response:
Who paid for each example to be created?
CNN obviously paid for the interview with Rudi Giuliani; or I suppose that you could boil it down to the commercials that air on CNN, ultimately pay for the interview. Volkswagen pays for the commercial with David Hasselhoff.
Can you detect a slant—that is, a secondary opinion conveyed by the examples’ creators?
I could detect a slant in the CNN clip; it seemed to me that Larry King was trying to bait Giuliani to be political in the interview. Controversy sells and it seemed that King was trying to get Giuliani to contradict and not support President Bush. I did not detect a slant in the Volkswagen commercial – I thought it was very witty and humorous.
What does each example reflect about society at large? Is it credible? Explain your answers.
The CNN clip reflects society’s dilemma of one major element and one minor element; the major element would be the war in Iraq and the minor element is what needs to be done at the sight of the World Trade Center. Both of these issues are credible due to the fact that these are dilemmas that society is struggling with; the clip did not offer any solutions to these two issues which would have jeopardized its credibility. The VW clip reflects society’s focus on the entertainment world – this commercial might not have been humorous to someone who does not know who David Hasselhoff is. However, since America in particular seems to be heavily focused on celebrities and Hasselhoff’s previous and current “limelight endeavors” the commercial is humorous – it compares a German-American to a German made car.
Answer the following in regard to the news clip in a 50- to 100-word response:
Are you skeptical of the sources’ credibility? Why or why not?
So far as the CNN clip, I think that with today’s news media, you always have to be skeptical as to what you hear as many of the outlets are very biased as to one party or the other. However, this particular Larry King interview was simply and interview of Giuliani’s experiences from 9/11.
Do you detect any bias? Why or why not?
I did not detect a bias with the CNN interview – it was just an interview and did not broadcast any particular message.
Answer the following in regard to the video ad on one of the links above in a 100- to 200- word response:
Does the ad make a claim?
The ad does not come straight out and make a claim; in fact it does not even say anything about a specific product but just about the company.
What fear or desire does the ad play into?
The desire that the ad plays into is two-fold; it plays into the humor aspect and plays into the “star power” factor. This particular VW ad shows Hasselhoff; other ads show other celebrities including Heidi Klum. By showing people that are easily recognized and are household names, individuals assume that “if David Hasselhoff likes it then it must be good for me!” Humor is another marketing technique because it lightens the mood and makes the company or entity seem human and genuine.
Does it target an existing fear or desire or does it try to create a new fear or desire?
Another one of the desires that this invokes is popularity; this is certainly not a new desire. This compares how popular David Hasselhoff is in other countries to how popular Volkswagen is in other countries. This also plays on the “if it’s good enough for him, it must be good for me!”
Does it try to invoke feeling, use admirable people to persuade, or describe a common situation?
This ad does invoke feelings and uses admirable people to persuade the audience to purchase a Volkswagen. Some of the feelings that the ad invokes are humor, the desire to be popular, and the cliché phrase “keeping up with the Jones’s.” The ad also uses a number of admirable people to persuade the audience as well.
Would you make a purchase based on the information presented?
I would not make a purchase based on the information presented if nothing more due to the large investment a vehicle is. Also, I think with how good marketing has gotten in today’s world, almost all commercials have to be looked at skeptically and research has to be done on the specific product. I will admit that the ad made me look around their website at the product they are releasing, the GTI mkV and look at all the specifications for it.
Source 2: Volkswagen David Hasselhoff TV Spot
Answer the following in regard to each of the two examples in a 100- to 200-word response:
Who paid for each example to be created?
CNN obviously paid for the interview with Rudi Giuliani; or I suppose that you could boil it down to the commercials that air on CNN, ultimately pay for the interview. Volkswagen pays for the commercial with David Hasselhoff.
Can you detect a slant—that is, a secondary opinion conveyed by the examples’ creators?
I could detect a slant in the CNN clip; it seemed to me that Larry King was trying to bait Giuliani to be political in the interview. Controversy sells and it seemed that King was trying to get Giuliani to contradict and not support President Bush. I did not detect a slant in the Volkswagen commercial – I thought it was very witty and humorous.
What does each example reflect about society at large? Is it credible? Explain your answers.
The CNN clip reflects society’s dilemma of one major element and one minor element; the major element would be the war in Iraq and the minor element is what needs to be done at the sight of the World Trade Center. Both of these issues are credible due to the fact that these are dilemmas that society is struggling with; the clip did not offer any solutions to these two issues which would have jeopardized its credibility. The VW clip reflects society’s focus on the entertainment world – this commercial might not have been humorous to someone who does not know who David Hasselhoff is. However, since America in particular seems to be heavily focused on celebrities and Hasselhoff’s previous and current “limelight endeavors” the commercial is humorous – it compares a German-American to a German made car.
Answer the following in regard to the news clip in a 50- to 100-word response:
Are you skeptical of the sources’ credibility? Why or why not?
So far as the CNN clip, I think that with today’s news media, you always have to be skeptical as to what you hear as many of the outlets are very biased as to one party or the other. However, this particular Larry King interview was simply and interview of Giuliani’s experiences from 9/11.
Do you detect any bias? Why or why not?
I did not detect a bias with the CNN interview – it was just an interview and did not broadcast any particular message.
Answer the following in regard to the video ad on one of the links above in a 100- to 200- word response:
Does the ad make a claim?
The ad does not come straight out and make a claim; in fact it does not even say anything about a specific product but just about the company.
What fear or desire does the ad play into?
The desire that the ad plays into is two-fold; it plays into the humor aspect and plays into the “star power” factor. This particular VW ad shows Hasselhoff; other ads show other celebrities including Heidi Klum. By showing people that are easily recognized and are household names, individuals assume that “if David Hasselhoff likes it then it must be good for me!” Humor is another marketing technique because it lightens the mood and makes the company or entity seem human and genuine.
Does it target an existing fear or desire or does it try to create a new fear or desire?
Another one of the desires that this invokes is popularity; this is certainly not a new desire. This compares how popular David Hasselhoff is in other countries to how popular Volkswagen is in other countries. This also plays on the “if it’s good enough for him, it must be good for me!”
Does it try to invoke feeling, use admirable people to persuade, or describe a common situation?
This ad does invoke feelings and uses admirable people to persuade the audience to purchase a Volkswagen. Some of the feelings that the ad invokes are humor, the desire to be popular, and the cliché phrase “keeping up with the Jones’s.” The ad also uses a number of admirable people to persuade the audience as well.
Would you make a purchase based on the information presented?
I would not make a purchase based on the information presented if nothing more due to the large investment a vehicle is. Also, I think with how good marketing has gotten in today’s world, almost all commercials have to be looked at skeptically and research has to be done on the specific product. I will admit that the ad made me look around their website at the product they are releasing, the GTI mkV and look at all the specifications for it.
Critical Thinking Assignment: Argument Credibility Peer Evaluation
One of my assignments was to evaluate a peer's assignment. The first section in italics is hers (or his) assignment. The second half is mine.
Title: America's Oil Crisis
Source: CNBC.com
Link: www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=766289001&play=11.
What claims are being made?
There are two claims being made in this video. The first is that the cause of high crude oil prices is due to stagnant supply rather than supply and demand and speculation by investors. The second claim is that the price of crude oil will markedly and rapidly decrease within the next two years.
Do the claims conflict with your personal observations?
The information in this video paints a very different picture of what I am used to hearing and reading. For almost two years now, in regards to crude oil prices, I have heard everything from supply and demand issues to speculation. This individual is explaining the problem in a way that I haven't heard yet. In essence, I would say that it is a conflict but not in the true sense of the word.
What background information do you have about the claims?
The claims are coming from the World Bank, which has been a reputable source of information for almost half a century. Economists have looked to the World Bank's Global Development Finance Report for over forty years now for strategy and information. The claims they are making seem to coincide with how the Energy Market's have been acting in regards to the price of crude oil. (source: worldbank.org)
What is the expertise of the author, if any?
The individual providing the information in the video is Dr. Uri Dudash, the Director of the International Trade Department of the World Bank. Dr. Dudash has been with the World Bank for 16 years and in the field for more than a quarter of a century. He has a BA and MA from the Hebrew University and a PhD from Harvard University. He is defined as an expert in international trade (source: worldbank.org)
Is the author biased and untrustworthy, or unbiased and trustworthy?
I find Mr. Dudash to be very unbiased. He makes the claim that the oil market's are being affected by stagnant supply, but does not discount other areas of concern such as supply and demand and speculation. I have done background research on him, and based on his credentials and reputation in the field, I find him to be very trustworthy.
Do you think your classmate accurately identified the claims? Explain your answer.
I think that the classmate did a great job of identifying the claims of the video. I watched the video several times and could not find anything that I would have commented on differently.
Your classmate has compared the claims against his or her personal observations; how do the claims agree or conflict with your own personal observations? How are the observations made by you and your classmate the same or different?
I would respect anyone’s response to the original question as it is simply asking for input and asking for an opinion in response to a certain topic. I do think that this is an interesting different point of view as to the “oil crisis” but I do not accept it; it is an interesting theory but I side with the supply and demand theories.
Your classmate has compared the claims against his or her background information; how do the claims agree or conflict with your own background information? How are the background analyses of you and your classmate the same or different?
The only background information that I have on this specific topic is what I read about online, what I see on the news, or what I hear about on talk-radio. I applaud the classmate on researching the source of the information; that is the best way to determine the accuracy of the source.
Do you feel your classmate made an accurate judgment about the author’s bias or trustworthiness? Explain your answer.
I think that the classmate made an accurate judgment. Not only did they take what the interviewer said as trustworthy, they researched the author’s credentials and past history.
Which concepts from the feedback tutorial did you use to conduct this peer review?
I feel that being positive is the best way to give constructive criticism. As soon as someone senses a hint of negativity, they become very defensive and it is likely that any criticism, even if valid, will “go in one ear, out the other.”
Title: America's Oil Crisis
Source: CNBC.com
Link: www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=766289001&play=11.
What claims are being made?
There are two claims being made in this video. The first is that the cause of high crude oil prices is due to stagnant supply rather than supply and demand and speculation by investors. The second claim is that the price of crude oil will markedly and rapidly decrease within the next two years.
Do the claims conflict with your personal observations?
The information in this video paints a very different picture of what I am used to hearing and reading. For almost two years now, in regards to crude oil prices, I have heard everything from supply and demand issues to speculation. This individual is explaining the problem in a way that I haven't heard yet. In essence, I would say that it is a conflict but not in the true sense of the word.
What background information do you have about the claims?
The claims are coming from the World Bank, which has been a reputable source of information for almost half a century. Economists have looked to the World Bank's Global Development Finance Report for over forty years now for strategy and information. The claims they are making seem to coincide with how the Energy Market's have been acting in regards to the price of crude oil. (source: worldbank.org)
What is the expertise of the author, if any?
The individual providing the information in the video is Dr. Uri Dudash, the Director of the International Trade Department of the World Bank. Dr. Dudash has been with the World Bank for 16 years and in the field for more than a quarter of a century. He has a BA and MA from the Hebrew University and a PhD from Harvard University. He is defined as an expert in international trade (source: worldbank.org)
Is the author biased and untrustworthy, or unbiased and trustworthy?
I find Mr. Dudash to be very unbiased. He makes the claim that the oil market's are being affected by stagnant supply, but does not discount other areas of concern such as supply and demand and speculation. I have done background research on him, and based on his credentials and reputation in the field, I find him to be very trustworthy.
Do you think your classmate accurately identified the claims? Explain your answer.
I think that the classmate did a great job of identifying the claims of the video. I watched the video several times and could not find anything that I would have commented on differently.
Your classmate has compared the claims against his or her personal observations; how do the claims agree or conflict with your own personal observations? How are the observations made by you and your classmate the same or different?
I would respect anyone’s response to the original question as it is simply asking for input and asking for an opinion in response to a certain topic. I do think that this is an interesting different point of view as to the “oil crisis” but I do not accept it; it is an interesting theory but I side with the supply and demand theories.
Your classmate has compared the claims against his or her background information; how do the claims agree or conflict with your own background information? How are the background analyses of you and your classmate the same or different?
The only background information that I have on this specific topic is what I read about online, what I see on the news, or what I hear about on talk-radio. I applaud the classmate on researching the source of the information; that is the best way to determine the accuracy of the source.
Do you feel your classmate made an accurate judgment about the author’s bias or trustworthiness? Explain your answer.
I think that the classmate made an accurate judgment. Not only did they take what the interviewer said as trustworthy, they researched the author’s credentials and past history.
Which concepts from the feedback tutorial did you use to conduct this peer review?
I feel that being positive is the best way to give constructive criticism. As soon as someone senses a hint of negativity, they become very defensive and it is likely that any criticism, even if valid, will “go in one ear, out the other.”
Critical Thinking Assignment: Argument Credibility
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8083e831
The above link is a video report from www.nflcom about the Denver Broncos and their outlook in 2008.
What claims are being made?
The claims in this video are that the Denver Broncos will be a better team by improving their run game. The reporters, Solomon Wilcots and Rich Eisen, suggest that the lack of a good running game is what has been affecting the Denver Bronco’s lack of success.
Do the claims conflict with your personal observations?
The claims do not conflict with my own personal observations. The Denver Broncos have always been known for running the ball well with anyone. While the Bronco’s have still run the ball better than a lot of teams in the league, their running game has not been up to the Bronco’s expectations.
What background information do you have about the claims?
I am an avid Bronco’s fan and have been so for many years. I follow several Denver Bronco blogs (www.milehighreport.com primarily) daily, and am a youth football coach. I do consider myself somewhat familiar with football.
What is the expertise of the author, if any?
The two authors are very experienced. The NFL Network (the source of the video) has found a niche in only reporting in the NFL. Solomon Wilcots is a former player and Rich Eisen is one of the, if not the only, anchors of the NFL Network.
Is the author biased and untrustworthy, or unbiased and trustworthy?
I think that the main reporter of this video, Solomon Wilcots, is neither of the two above options; I think he is biased but trustworthy. He is reporting not just facts but things that he personally feels. However, he does not report things that are inaccurate or true; he takes what has been proven with facts and offers his interpretation.
The above link is a video report from www.nflcom about the Denver Broncos and their outlook in 2008.
What claims are being made?
The claims in this video are that the Denver Broncos will be a better team by improving their run game. The reporters, Solomon Wilcots and Rich Eisen, suggest that the lack of a good running game is what has been affecting the Denver Bronco’s lack of success.
Do the claims conflict with your personal observations?
The claims do not conflict with my own personal observations. The Denver Broncos have always been known for running the ball well with anyone. While the Bronco’s have still run the ball better than a lot of teams in the league, their running game has not been up to the Bronco’s expectations.
What background information do you have about the claims?
I am an avid Bronco’s fan and have been so for many years. I follow several Denver Bronco blogs (www.milehighreport.com primarily) daily, and am a youth football coach. I do consider myself somewhat familiar with football.
What is the expertise of the author, if any?
The two authors are very experienced. The NFL Network (the source of the video) has found a niche in only reporting in the NFL. Solomon Wilcots is a former player and Rich Eisen is one of the, if not the only, anchors of the NFL Network.
Is the author biased and untrustworthy, or unbiased and trustworthy?
I think that the main reporter of this video, Solomon Wilcots, is neither of the two above options; I think he is biased but trustworthy. He is reporting not just facts but things that he personally feels. However, he does not report things that are inaccurate or true; he takes what has been proven with facts and offers his interpretation.
Critical Thinking Assignment: Revising an Inadequate Message
Identify areas of vagueness and ambiguity and discuss how you could clarify the email’s message using the writing principles addressed in the text.
Hi class,
I don’t have a lot of time to explain but off the top of my head answer is as a reader critical thinking affects me all ways. Not just reading but writing too. Sometimes what I read I must write about later like this discussion question so clearly I have to read. Clear writing is the hardest thing in the world. Though I don’t the average writer has to write business rapports which can build report and be inter personal. In critical writing, writers construct sentences with clear intentions. Business people write fast because the business people I know are always in a hurry. Business reading is reports, memos and articles. My aunt is a university professor and she writes articles for journals. She is smart and a better writer than my uncle who is a businessman. So critical writers are better than business writers. But critical writing like argumentative essays have structure, so business writing has structure too. It’s not a matter of one kind of writing being harder than the other it’s that the structure is harder.
Thanks,
Owen
Personally, I do not feel this is a very well written as there are many areas of ambiguity vagueness within the text. Owen, the author, seems to jump around from thought to thought without explaining his thought process or using evidence to support his points. For example, “Sometimes what I read I must write about later like this discussion question so clearly I have to read. Clear writing is the hardest thing in the world.” We, as readers, can only guess as to how you go from talking about the necessity of reading to clear writing being the hardest thing in the world. Owen’s writing is also very vague at points: “She is smart and a better writer than my uncle who is a businessman.” Why is the aunt a better writer than the uncle? Is this because she is a professor and instructs others on writing or is her writing just “better” than the uncle’s? The whole message in general is also not grammatically correct which when reading is the same as listening to a conversation with someone who cannot construct a complete sentence. For example, “…has to write business rapports which can build report and be inter personal”; this should be written as “…has to write business reports which can build rapport and be interpersonal.” This whole message seems more like a rough-draft than the final product. Almost every individual sentence can be taken as a separate talking point; after writing this, Owen should re-read what he has written and analyze every sentence and think where he can go with that message.
Hi class,
I don’t have a lot of time to explain but off the top of my head answer is as a reader critical thinking affects me all ways. Not just reading but writing too. Sometimes what I read I must write about later like this discussion question so clearly I have to read. Clear writing is the hardest thing in the world. Though I don’t the average writer has to write business rapports which can build report and be inter personal. In critical writing, writers construct sentences with clear intentions. Business people write fast because the business people I know are always in a hurry. Business reading is reports, memos and articles. My aunt is a university professor and she writes articles for journals. She is smart and a better writer than my uncle who is a businessman. So critical writers are better than business writers. But critical writing like argumentative essays have structure, so business writing has structure too. It’s not a matter of one kind of writing being harder than the other it’s that the structure is harder.
Thanks,
Owen
Personally, I do not feel this is a very well written as there are many areas of ambiguity vagueness within the text. Owen, the author, seems to jump around from thought to thought without explaining his thought process or using evidence to support his points. For example, “Sometimes what I read I must write about later like this discussion question so clearly I have to read. Clear writing is the hardest thing in the world.” We, as readers, can only guess as to how you go from talking about the necessity of reading to clear writing being the hardest thing in the world. Owen’s writing is also very vague at points: “She is smart and a better writer than my uncle who is a businessman.” Why is the aunt a better writer than the uncle? Is this because she is a professor and instructs others on writing or is her writing just “better” than the uncle’s? The whole message in general is also not grammatically correct which when reading is the same as listening to a conversation with someone who cannot construct a complete sentence. For example, “…has to write business rapports which can build report and be inter personal”; this should be written as “…has to write business reports which can build rapport and be interpersonal.” This whole message seems more like a rough-draft than the final product. Almost every individual sentence can be taken as a separate talking point; after writing this, Owen should re-read what he has written and analyze every sentence and think where he can go with that message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)