Question.5036 - Week 5Identifying Fallacies and RhetoricAssignmentRequired ResourcesRead/review the following resources for this activity:Textbook: Chapters 4, 5, 6Lesson InstructionsSample EssayThe arguments against marijuana are just wrong and shouldn’t even be discussed. I use it, and I’m just fine, so I don’t see how it could be harmful. I don’t see those people who are fighting to outlaw marijuana also out there fighting to outlaw alcohol. Many important writers, artists, and athletes agree with my opinion. There’s no evidence that marijuana can kill you or make you sick, so it must be okay. This is just old people making war on young people. If they’d just stop, we’d have a peaceful country instead of all this left/right division. But they’ll keep at it. Anything they think is “addictive” will be fair game. Pretty soon, they’ll be outlawing video games and social media. How are young people supposed to relax and have fun? Pretty soon, we’ll all be staying home doing jigsaw puzzles. Well, I don’t think we’re going to put up with it much longer. If they think the riots a couple of years ago were bad, they haven’t seen anything. Their arguments against marijuana are worthless. This assignment will assess your ability to recognize fallacies and rhetoric in the argument presented in the sample essay above. It will also assess your ability to avoid fallacies and negative rhetoric in expressing ideas. Analyze the argument in the sample essay. State the conclusion and summarize the reasons. There are at least 10 fallacies in the essay on marijuana. Identify at least five of these by the terms introduced in either the text or the lesson. Rewrite the essay, using similar ideas but avoiding the fallacies and negative rhetoric. For example, the first paragraph might be rewritten as “Arguments opposing marijuana lack legal and scientific support.” (150-200 words)Writing Requirements1-inch marginsDouble spaced12-point Times New Roman fontTitle pageGradingThis assignment will be graded using the Week 5 Assessment Rubric OutcomesCO 4: Evaluate arguments by applying standard tests. CO 5: Evaluate the role of cognitive bias and fallacies of relevance in critical reasoning and decision-making. CO 7: Create a fallacy-free argument that incorporates principles of ethical decision-making.
Answer Below:
Week xxxxxxxxxxx Fallacies xxx RhetoricPHIL xxxxxxxx ReasoningJune xx Question xxx argument xxxx is xxxx there xx no xxxx in xxxxx marijuana xxx no xxx should xxxxxx it xxx speaker xxxxxxxxx by xxxxxx the xxxxxxxxx against xx are xxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxx Summary xx the xxxxxxxxxxxx is xx harm xx using xxxxxxxxx as xxxxx is xxxxxx any xxxxxxxx to xxxxxxx it xxxxxx adverse xxxxxxx It xx a xxxx propaganda xx the xxx against xxx youth xxxxxxxx Five xxxxxxxxx in xxxx essay xxx The xxxxxxxxx opposing xxxxxxxxx are xxxxxx I xxx marijuana xxx I xx fine xx there xx nothing xxxxx with xx Those xxx protest xxxxxxx marijuana xx not xxxxxxx against xxxxxxx Many xxxxxxxxx people xxx it xx there xx no xxxx in xxxxx There xx no xxxxxxxx to xxxx the xxx of xxxxxxxxx is xxxxxxx Question xxxxxxxxx is xxxxx associated xxxx addiction xxxxxxx many xxxxxxxxxxxxxx studies xxxx now xxxxxxxxx it xxxxxx some xxxxx benefits xx well xxxx people xxxx reported xxxx the xxx of xxxxxxxxx has xxxxxx them xxx relief xxxx chronic xxxx Appetite xxxx is xxxxx the xxxx common xxxxxxxxxx faced xx HIV xxxx patients xxxxxxxxx has xxxx effectively xxxx to xxxxxxx the xxxxxxxx levels xx such xxxxxxxx in xxxx countries xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx S xxxxxxxxxxx S xxxxxx J xxxx M xxxx M xxxxx D xxxxx B x Risks xxx benefits xx marijuana xxx a xxxxxxxx survey xx US xxxxxx Annals xx internal xxxxxxxx -More Articles From Critical Reasoning PHIL 347
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
