+1443 776-2705 panelessays@gmail.com

 I’m working on a english discussion question and need a sample draft to help me understand better.

There is two questions they are both to be 200-300 words each. Here is question 1: Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapters 7 and 8 in your textbook, and read the instructor In addition, to help you better to know the fallacies, watch the following videos:

Discussion Prompt
Once you learn the names of the major logical fallacies, you will probably start noticing them all over the place, including in advertisements, movies, TV shows, and everyday conversations. This can be both fascinating and frustrating, but it can certainly help you to avoid certain pitfalls in reasoning that are unfortunately very common. This exercise gives you a chance to practice identifying fallacies as they occur in daily life.

Prepare: Read through Chapter 7 of the course text, paying special attention to learning the names of common fallacies, biases, and rhetorical tricks.

Reflect: Search through common media sources looking for examples of fallacies. Some common places to find fallacies include advertisements, opinion pieces in news media, and arguments about politics, religion, and other controversial issues. You may also notice fallacies in your daily life.

Write: Present three distinct informal logical fallacies you have discovered in these types of sources or in your life. Make sure to identify the specific fallacy committed by each example. Explain how the fallacies were used and the context in which they occurred. Finally, explain how the person should have presented the argument in order to avoid committing this logical error.

Read the fallacies presented by your classmates and analyze the reasoning that they have presented. Respond in a way that furthers the discussion. For example, you might comment on any of the following types of questions: Have ever seen or fallen for similar fallacies in your own life? Are any of the cases presented also instances of some other type of fallacy? Is there a sense in which the reasoning might not be fallacious in some cases? What can people do to avoid falling for such fallacies in the future?

Here is QUESTION 2: Discussion Prompt

Logic and critical thinking are highly relevant to the events we see in the world around us. This discussion gives you a chance to share an example. Start by selecting an event that is going on in the world right now. It could be something in the news, something you have learned about from science, technology, an academic field, or even something important and relevant that is going on in your life. It should be an issue that allows for different perspectives (there are many ways to define “perspectives” … they could be about whether the thing is true, good, real, important, being done in the right way, etc.).

In your post,

  • Share a source (or sources) that addresses or explains the issue/topic/event (you do not have to use scholarly sources here).
  • Share an argument on each side of the issue or explain the two different perspectives.
  • Evaluate the reasoning surrounding this topic. Address questions such as the following:
    • Are the competing positions clear?
    • Do the two positions/perspectives actually contradict each other?
    • Are the premises of the arguments strongly supported by evidence?
    • Do the arguments use good reasoning?
    • Are any fallacies or biases committed by either side?
    • Why do people hold the different positions/perspectives?
    • How might either (or both) sides express their perspectives more effectively?
  • Evaluate the rhetoric that surrounds this topic: Address questions such as the following: Are people being civil and fair minded in how they address the issue? How might one strive for greater fairness, objectivity, and civility in how we address this kind of topic? If we did so, would society be more likely to make progress on issues such as this?

A note about controversy and civility: Many of the topics that may come up in this forum will be controversial in nature. Understandably, students will have very different perspectives on them. In order to learn from each other, to avoid creating contention, keep in mind the following: It is not necessary to represent your own views here. You are welcome to present the arguments on both sides of the issue without taking sides yourself. This will allow students to talk about the arguments (rather than trying to prove each other wrong). If you do present your own views, make sure to be highly respectful of the feelings and perspectives of those with different views as you do so. Civility is an essential part of how we learn from each other.

THIS IS ONE IS BASED ON THE WEEKLY ASSIGNMENTS YOU ARE DOING
WILL ATTACH YOU PREVIOUS ONE NDIO USHIKE TOPIC YAKO
THE ONE ABOUT DAP 
 

Running head: INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT 1

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT 4

Inductive Argument: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Preschool

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Date


Inductive Argument: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Preschool

An argument is said to be an inductive argument when the arguer intends to make it strong enough but not necessarily valid that if the premises were to be accurate, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. In other words, the strength of an inductive argument depends on the degree, as opposed to the deductive argument. For example,

“According to available literature, “all dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool (Nunan, 1999).” However, in States like California, dual language learners’ enrolment in preschool is very low compared to non-dual language learners.”

According to the arguer, all dual language learners are set to benefit from high-quality preschool. He is confident that dual language learners will benefit from preschool. Such certainty is what makes this argument inductive. The same statement is also intended to be valid, and that is what qualifies it as a deductive argument. Now having said so, let’s look at the statement again.

all dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool” inductive logic is, preschool learners are bilingual. Even if the premises are true, the inductive reasoning will still allow the conclusion to be false or invalid. Our conclusion in the example gives us an invalid conclusion, although the arguer’s intention was to make it strong. This is inductive reasoning. However, the argument does not satisfy the logical conclusion because not all preschool learners are dual language learners.

The statement can be classified further according to its strength.

all dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool” The conclusion of the matter may not be true, but the certainty of the arguer makes it a strong inductive argument because he has given a strong reason to believe the conclusion that dual language learners will surely benefit from preschool learning. This is how to differentiate between strong and weak inductive arguments.

References

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 7625 Empire Dr., Florence, KY 41042-2978.

Running head: CRITICAL EVALUATION 1

CRITICAL EVALUATION 5

Critical Evaluation: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Preschool

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Date

Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Preschool

Today, what each child need are strategies to teach that will consider the ballooning population of children who converse in a language other than English in the United States. Thus, the appropriate developmental practice (DAP) promotes the importance of early childhood education for improved learning progressions amongst preschool children (Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000). There are three approaches to help these learners achieve their goals; language classroom, bilingual classroom, and English language classroom. According to available literature, dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool. However, in States like California, dual language learners’ enrolment in preschool is very low compared to non-dual language learners. According to Nunan (1999), the second language learning process is not quick; learners have to attend classes for around six months because the whole process can only be effective after the sixth month.  The big question is, do dual language learners stand a chance to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool?

Supporting claim

First, the answer will be yes. Neuman et al. are on point while stating that DAP promotes the importance of early childhood education and improved learning amongst preschool children, and this will be the first premise. Secondly, there are even three different approaches adopted for different classes to ensure this is achieved. Although America enjoys higher literacy rates, society expects virtually every child to benefit from education, whether English speaking or dual language user. This assertion is all-inclusive, meaning not only English speaking but also dual language learners stand equal chances of benefiting from preschool learning. In other words, DAP promotes the importance of preschool education for all children; dual language learners benefit, and every learner benefits too. From this statement, it is evident that the truth of its premise guarantees the truth of its conclusion, thus a valid argument in a standard form.

In evaluating this reasoning, it can be concluded that it is a formal kind of reasoning. As Hardy et al. (2015) put it, formal reasoning is used to evaluate and examine the logical relationship between the conclusion and supporting assertions. Therefore, since the conclusion has been determined by establishing the truth of the supporting premises, then the argument is formal reasoning which is deductive in nature. Formal reasoning is deductive in nature. In simple terms, as argued above, any conclusion of a valid formal argument goes in line with the premises and in its conclusion produces no new information but reconstructs what is already known into a new proclamation of the same information. Therefore, dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool because DAP promotes the importance of early childhood education for improved learning progressions amongst preschool children.

Opposing side

On the opposing side, our main topic question can still be subjected to a lot of critics. Consider the statement once again, “dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool.” This can mean only dual language learners stand chances of benefiting from high-quality preschool learning. However, the assertion by Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp (2000) that, “DAP promotes the importance of early childhood education for improved learning progressions amongst preschool children” makes the conclusion invalid because DAP’s early childhood activities are all-inclusive and consider all children both dual speaking and English speaking learners. Secondly, there are three approaches to help different learners achieve their goals. There is a language classroom, a bilingual classroom, and an English language classroom. This means that there is no single child is sidelined with this program. The establishment of different classes ensures that no learner is left behind. Third, in States like California, dual language learners’ enrolment in preschool is very low compared to non-dual language learners. The essence of this is that the majority are going to benefit from this program for English learners. Lastly, according to Nunan (1999), the second language learning process is not quick and takes longer before learners can adapt to it. Therefore, learners are required to attend classes for around six months because the whole process can only be effective after the sixth month. How then can they stand a chance of benefiting more compared to others?

Although this argument was intended to be true, all the premises that led to its conclusion are not true. For any argument to be a sound argument, then validity is necessary. The point is DAP provides equal opportunity to all learners, and all participants will automatically benefit. Since the conclusion doesn’t qualify, and all three of the premises are not true, then the statement is invalid with misguided reasoning. Most researchers will also term this kind of reasoning misguided. There exist approximately four theories on how to determine whether a conclusion follows from the premises. In this context, though it was intended to be true, the argument is invalid according to formal logic because it only addresses the probability of the truth of the premises and the conclusion. Therefore, dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool. This statement contradicts the assertion that the appropriate developmental practice promotes the importance of early childhood education for improved learning progressions amongst all preschool children. The benefit is for all preschool learners.


Reference

Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). With good reason: A guide to critical thinking

Neuman, S. B., Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 7625 Empire Dr., Florence, KY 41042-2978.