Submit your evaluation of one of the arguments below.
Please submit the file in Word or PDF format (if you use Google docs, Mac Pages, or some other word processing format, please Google search how to ‘Export As’ or ‘Save As’ one of the accepted filetypes).
Be sure to include proper formatting for an assignment (your name, the class, and the assignment name at the top) and title your evaluation using the argument you’ve chosen below to evaluate (e.g., “Evaluation of Socrates’ Argument that a Just Person Doesn’t Harm”).
The argument evaluation should address all 5 questions in at least 250-300 words and be cited properly (grounded in the text evaluated).
This is not an essay, and does not need to be in essay form; you may number your document 1-5 and simply answer each question below.
Choose one argument and evaluate it according to these parameters:
Determine whether it seems to be a deductive or inductive argument, and why.
Determine whether the premises really support the conclusion: does the conclusion logically follow? Is the argument complete, or are there parts missing (for instance: missing evidence)? Is it valid (if deductive) or strong (if inductive)?
Determine whether you believe the premises are true, and why (what examples/experiences/knowledge do you have that supports them). Is it sound (if deductively valid) or cogent (if inductively strong)?
Determine whether there may be any bias in the argument, and whether such bias affects the persuasiveness of the argument.
Determine whether the argument is persuasive: is it convincing? Is there a counterargument or objection possible that might challenge this argument?
Possible arguments (choose one of these or another you find in the texts from Weeks 1-3):
Socrates’s argument that a just person doesn’t harm (Republic, Book I):
Premise 1: Causing harm to horses decreases their virtue as horses.
Premise 2: It is the same for humans.
Sub-Conclusion 1/Premise 3: Causing harm to humans decreases their virtue as humans.
Premise 4: Justice is a human virtue.
Sub-Conclusion 2: Causing harm to humans makes them unjust.
Conclusion: Therefore, a just person doesn’t harm.
Frankfurt’s argument that BS is the worse enemy of truth than lying
Premise 1: Truth is what reflects reality.
Premise 2: Lying is the intentional misrepresentation of truth.
Premise 3: BS is the intentional misrepresentation of one’s motives.
Premise 4: BS displays a lack of concern for truth.
Premise 5: BS results in desensitizing others to a concern for truth.
Premise 6: BS results one’s loss of their grasp of reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, BS is the worse enemy of truth than lying.
Martin Luther King, Jr.,’s argument that direct action was necessary in Birmingham
Premise 1: The 4-step campaign to change unjust laws is the proper course of action in Birmingham.
Premise 2: Activists in Birmingham have followed steps 1-3.
Premise 3: Birmingham has unjust laws.
Premise 4: No change has resulted from steps 1-3.
Conclusion: Therefore, direct action to change the unjust laws is necessary.
Thrasymachus’s argument that justice is the advantage of the stronger (Republic, Book I)
Premise 1: In every case of government, whatever the type, the governing authority is the stronger.
Premise 2: The governing authority makes laws that benefit themselves/that are to their own advantage.
Premise 3; The governing authority declares following these laws to be just.
Conclusion: Therefore, justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.
Rubric
Argument Evaluation #1 Updated
Argument Evaluation #1 Updated
Criteria Ratings
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvaluation
Exceeds Expectations
All parts of the evaluation are thoroughly and insightfully addressed. Reasoning is sound and insightful. Responses are analytical more than summative.
Meets Expectations
All parts of the evaluation are addressed, but could be more thorough. Reasoning is sound. Responses may be both analytical and summative.
Approaches Expectations
Not all parts of the evaluation are addressed, and/or responses are mostly summative of the argument and not analytical. A few mistakes may be reasoning are present.
Below Expectations
Responses are terse and mostly summative. Some parts of the evaluation may be missing or incomplete. Mistakes in reasoning are present.
Incomplete
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar & Style
Exceeds Expectations
Text is easy to read and clearly stated. All intellectual property is recognized properly, and the argument reconstruction is grounded in the text (i.e., cited).
Meets Expectations
Text is easy to read. All intellectual property is recognized properly, and the argument reconstruction is mostly grounded in the text (i.e., cited).
Approaches Expectations
Text may be unclear or hard to read in parts. Intellectual property is not properly recognized, if at all.
Below Expectations
Text is indiscernible and/or intellectual property is not recognized.
Incomplete
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstration of Logic Comprehension
Exceeds Expectations
Uses terminology of logic and arguments accurately and applies them to the argument deftly. Demonstrates clear understanding of structure of arguments, and can discuss the elements of argumentation with ease.
Meets Expectations
Is mostly accurate in use of the terminology of argumentation, and has a mostly successful attempt at applying that terminology to the argument in question. Demonstrates understanding of the structure of arguments. May struggle to discuss the elements of argumentation.
Approaches Expectations
Uses the terminology of logic and arguments, but is only partially accurate in their application. Does not demonstrate clear understanding of the structure of arguments in every reference to the argument evaluated. Struggles to discuss the elements of argumentation.
Below Expectations
Does not use the terminology of logic and arguments accurately. Does not demonstrate comprehension of the structure of argumentation.
Incomplete
PreviousNext
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|