Jim Demint's Argument Analysis

Americans today are no strangers to stretching every dollar earned in an attempt to live the American dream. Most people work long hours and eat on the fly with very little thought to what, or where, the food they have purchased came from. The reason food is so inexpensive has not been a concern to the average American, but the article written by Michael Pollan “The Food Movement Rising” attempts to convince the people that it is time to remove the blinders and take an accounting of the situation that America finds itself in. With obesity at epic proportions, and preventable diseases like

The congressional behaviors of Representative Maxine Waters, a Democratic representative for the 43rd district of California, and that of Democratic Representative Darren Soto are both inspired by the goal of reelection. This common goal of reelection coined by David Mayhew is achieved differently by each representative depending on the demographics, political leaning, and incumbency of the district. When comparing the legislative behavior of Darren Soto, the representative of Florida’s newly drawn 9th congressional district, and that of Representative Maxine Waters from California’s 43rd Congressional district, this holding becomes evident. This paper will argue that while both Rep. Waters, and Rep. Soto are inspired by the common goal of

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

Greg Abbott was the republican candidate who supported anti-abortion, less funds for education, and against immigration. While his opponent Wendy Davis who is the democratic candidate that supports abortion, fund our future in education and wants to help immigrants to help their families. Greg Abbott had an accident that made him be on the wheel chair and allowed him to understand the problems that people. While he heard others problem he wanted to fix them with his own problems. That is an inspirational mission that he has but he went the route of offending his opponent. Wendy Davis is a single mother and Texas Senator that she served. While going through the struggles she wanted to fight for women’s rights and also for all those who are oppressed.

Previously, Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed to jam committee meetings until the Republican Party would move forward forward with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Both the Republicans and Democrats have been stuck in a giant quagmire regarding Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. The Republicans are adamantly opposed to newcomer Merrick Garland. The Democrats generally support Garland, however, some believe that he is too moderate on issues such as gun control. In order to break the stalemate, Reid pledged to seize committee meetings -- forcing the Republicans to move forward with Garland.

In a world that’s “endlessly” changing, it’s only logical that those inhabiting it follow the same agenda. In Jon Krakauer’s, “Into the Wild, youngster Chris McCandless is described to have attempted to follow his own advice; the joy of life “comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon” (Krakauer 57). To the extent of seemingly necessary changes, McCandless’s philosophy is accurate.

An argument is deductively valid if and only if its premises are true and always lead to a true conclusion. (Dolson, HO #3, p.1) Premise A, “If Abraham Lincoln was a friend of John Wilkes Booth, then John Wilkes Booth would not kill Abraham Lincoln.” is true. Premise B, “Abraham Lincoln was not friends with John Wilkes booth.” is also true. But, the conclusion supposes that because John Wilkes Booth and Lincoln were not friends, Booth would kill Abraham Lincoln. There are multiple ways to show an argument is invalid. One test is Dan Dolson's Test for Validity (D.D.T.V.). To use D.D.T.V. we must pretend the premises are true and find a way in which the conclusion can be false (Dolson, #3, p.1). We have already stated the premises are true so there is no need to pretend, but the test still works. We can easily imagine a situation in which Booth and Lincoln are not friends where Booth does not kill Lincoln. Therefore, using the D.D.T.V. we can conclude that the argument is invalid.

Since the dawn of mankind, clusters of innovations throughout history have allowed for societal progression at an explosive rate. While primarily fostering a centrifugal system of advancements; humans’ interests in expansion is spiraling out of control. Throughout history elements of collapse can be traced through civilizations and natural resources. Wright’s argument posits humans have hyperextended their utilization of resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, therein by setting up the world for the largest ecological collapse in history (Wright, 2004, pg. 130-131). Due to the cyclical process of past collapse and reformation humans have an advantage to rectify our current consumption rates ultimately avoiding a fate similar to past societies (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). As such Wright’s argument should frame larger discussions of responsible citizenship.

A strong written argument is supported by several methods that are used to legitimize the author’s position as well as to discredit any counterargument brought forth. The techniques include introducing a counterargument and weakening it’s position with evidence. Providing legitimate academic research such as statistics as well as anecdotes from scholars on the given subject can reinforce the author’s argument. Another important method used is requiring the reader to critically think about a subject brought forth by challenging their preconceived ideas about a topic. This may also include using hidden assumptions that use implicit statements which have a certain opinion such as “If I follow the rules, good things will happen”, this is common

My initial reaction to Limbaugh’s claim that “feminism was established so that unattractive women could have easier access to the mainstream of society" was mixed when I first read it. Limbaugh’s opinion of feminism is based on what is termed as popularized or degraded. These two terms are really umbrella terms used for various movements and theories which support equality for women. Not all of the theories about feminism are acceptable in our society today. Limbaugh’s comments make a generalization about feminism. The comments made by Limbaugh, to me, are offensive and without consideration.

Gerald Graff is a professor of English and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Graff, in his essay, emphasizes the importance for instructors to teach and increase enjoyable courses that students shall truly understand. Graff assures that all kids have hidden intellectualism trying to emerge from within, and as a teacher he feels partly accountable to help those kids develop their competencies in educational work. The essence of Graff’s argument is for students to know that intellectualism lurks within them all, and they need to implement their potential at school. Furthermore, he enriches the essay based totally on his own life experiences, along with his hidden intellectualism, while he attended school during the anti-intellectualism

The article by Michael Binyon and the cartoon by Tom Toles make the claim that President Obama did not deserve to win a Nobel Peace Prize at the beginning of his presidency. Toles and Binyon share similar viewpoint, so they approach the subject in similar ways. Both of the speakers describe President Obama’s lack of accomplishments at the time he received the award. They both appear to pose strong arguments about this subject; however, the article by Michael Binyon seems to be stronger than the cartoon. Even though both provide effective arguments about the topic, “Comment: Absurd Decision on Obama Makes a Mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize” seems to pose the strongest argument because Michael Binyon was able to develop his claim and effectively impact his audience using background information, evoking strong emotions, and comparing President Obama to deserving winners of the past.

Maryann might have not thought she was plagiarizing, but she was. She was doing just fine until she reads other peoples articles and then takes their comments as their own. The definition of plagiarism s the taking of someone else’s work by passing them off as your own, which is what Maryann did and the article even said that she did.

Today, Americans are worried about the effects plastic bag impact the environment. In the dispute between the Gulftowne Gazette Committe and gift shop owner Theo Jones, the Gulftowne Ordinance Committee provides a stronger argument for it point that plastic bags litter our landscape and threatening surrounding wildlife. As the Gulftowne Ordinance Committee points out cities across the country and globe have banned the use of plastic bag.

The movie, The Great Debaters, takes place in the 1930s and explores the struggles of three students from Wiley College’s debate team. The first character introduced is the youngest student from the team, 14 year old, James Farmer Jr. He is an ambitious young man who strives to live up to his father’s expectations. James struggles with fear throughout the movie. He is sheltered and does not understand the severity of the racial conflict of the time. This trait is evident in the film in two key scenes. The first is when his family is out for a drive and his father accidently hits a white man’s pig. James’s father is very cautious during this interaction and James witnesses the incident from the car. This interaction has a major impact on James and gives him a greater understanding of the racial conflict. The second incident occurs when James is unsuccessful in his first debate. When given other opportunities to debate, he questions himself and fears failure. This fear plays a role in the debate team’s future competitions.