Gordon Adams Argument Analysis

President Lincoln proposed a lenient plan to bring the defeated Confederate states to join the Union, which was known as the Ten Percent Plan. He believed that being more lenient to Confederate states would convince them to surrender sooner, and would speed up the healing process, which he thought was needed for a solid reconstruction of the Union. The plan consisted of forgiving all Southerners, except the high-ranking officers and officials, who would pledge loyalty to the Union, and as soon as 10% of the state’s voters would pledge oath to the Union, the state could call a convention and as a result could form a government and apply for federal recognition.

Danforth uses the fallacy Argumentum ad Baculum to persuade Mary to tell the truth. At this point in the trial, Mary proclaimed that the entire argument of witchcraft is a hoax and the girls pretended to see spirits. To encourage Mary to speak, Danforth says “I say you will hang you if you do not open with me!” (117, Act 3) threatening death if Mary doesn’t tell the truth. Argumentum ad Baculum is pathos based fallacy as it appeals to the human emotion of fear. Fear is a strong human emotion present in all, making it an effective tool in persuasion. Using fear is fallacious, however, because provoking fear in the audience does not constitute as evidence for the argument. Danforth implication of hanging only persuades Mary to save herself by

He asks the question “Why do I need college algebra?”(Adams 19). I can relate to this as many of us in today's society are in college and we look at our degree requirements and think “Why do I have to take this class” to ourselves. In Adams case he only has “the benefit of a ninth grade education.”(Adams 18). It is clear that he needs algebra, but he tries to exempt himself from this requirement. He contacts friends that are attorneys and they say that there are no courses in his profession that even require algebra or more specifically, college algebra (20).

The Yankee’s claim was an Abuse of a Slippery Slope Argument because between the two notions of the boy being innocent and the building falling down, the former can be backed up by evidence and is far more plausible than the latter based purely off of supposition. What he should’ve done was say that if if his only evidence for supposing the defendant was not guilty was because it was possible, then his argument would not be very strong.

The author of this letter was very respectful towards their target audence of the ASU committee and is very effective in their argument and their pursuit to withdraw from future math classes needed for their diploma. The purpose of this letter was to not avoid taking the class or to be lazy in a roundabout way and the author offers several examples of why they believe they won't need it in the long run of their law degree. General followers of education will be able to relate to the sentiments, most of them being involved in classes that won't be at all beneficial to a degree of their choice.

I am writing this letter in regards to Brooke Austins Inquiry Paper. In this paper she really has excelled and used her strengths to present a strong argument. Her inquiry paper about Juvenile Delinquency programs and there effectiveness outlines the risks associated and the issues these programs create. In Brooke’s introduction she briefly states the issues that arise from these programs and asks the audience a question to ponder throughout the inquiry.

Throughout his narrative, Fredrerick Douglass describes his own experiences as they happen. Douglas core arguments against the horrible institution of slavery are embedded in the telling of these experiences.

The speech delivered by a member of the city council claims that EHS could improve its educational quality even without additional increase in the school’s funding. When stated this way, the author omits some importance concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. Consequently, the statement is unconvincing and flawed.

In May of 1776 a resolution was passed at the Virginia Convention in Williamsburg that asked the thirteen American colonies to declare the United Colonies free and independent from the British crown. At the second continental congress the resolution passed and on June 11, 1776 a five-man committee led by Thomas Jefferson was established to write the Declaration of Independence. On July 4, 1776 the members of the second continental congress signed into existence one of the most influential documents in history.

For me, one of the things that really resonated was Allen’s point about people’s positions and how they come to hold these certain positions. Allen made the claim that many people hold a certain position simply because they heard it from someone else or read it, not because it was based off of scripture. I have personally seen this happen when it comes to the topic of Calvinism. I have experienced both sides of the argument of people holding positions yet they cannot tell me exactly how the bible explains their position on an argument. Like Allen said, the Calvinist debate is not something that will just go away. We as southern Baptists need to have a correct biblical understanding when it comes to the Calvinist debate. If we disagree with

Paul Bogard gave new insight to an issue that needs to be solved. Light pollution. Using various elements, he provided his audience with new information about light pollution.

Ellis Cose line of reasoning was focused on what diversity does. Cose believe it increases the likelihood students will succeed and become leaders in their careers and communities. Because success today a break through to improve results in working productively with people whose experiences are different from your own, and the business world introducing what is the best way to introduce and implement diversity to type of leaders for tomorrow technologies. So when Cose say we all should believe today that we need to work together to promote all types of diversity, not just race, but of national origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, and religion; just as Martin Luther King Jr, “believed in the need for what he termed a “world

Philo does not mind that the argument is a posteriori; his only complaint is that it is a bad argument. Philo brings up several ways in which the argument from design fails as an inductive inference. To begin with, he claims that the analogy is no good. He asserts that the universe and a machine are not comparable in the way that the red and blue flames are comparative, and hence, a contention by similarity is not substantial. Philo's second objection is that the analogy does not work since it is between an entire and a part of that entirety. A machine is a part of the universe, and it looks bad to accept that one part of the universe is comparable to the entire of the universe since we have no experience of alternate parts. Philo's third objection is that not all order is the result of design. Therefore, it is conceivable that the universe is not undifferentiated from a machine despite the fact that it is requested; it may be practically equivalent to some other type of request and not to a man-made structure. For instance, some highly ordered systems that we know of are the result of reproduction instead of intelligent design. Just because there is order, therefore, it does not mean

After reading, annotating, and analyzing the following article, “Petition to Waive the University mathematics Requirement”, I concluded to say No to his request. I don’t think that Mr. Adams should be exempted from taking the math requirements because of several reasons. First, his arguments presents that the college drops a class that is required for everyone that is in the same major as him. This is not reasonable because this challenges the very system of assessing classes to students. If they waive this class for him, any

The way in which Putnam designs his argument is by leading us to imagine a scenario where there is a world that only contains brains, a vat, and a laboratory containing supercomputers that stimulates the envatted brains. Putnam says that the computers stimulates what we see through electronic impulses. These impulses create experiences that normal humans have, which then allows us to see and experience trees. Putnam then goes on to refute the argument of the brains in a vat by appealing to self-knowledge. He argues that we cannot be a brain in a vat because then we would not know what we would be seeing or experiencing, in his case a tree. The brain in the vats argument says that if we know “p”, then we are not a brain in a vat but if we do