Reference no: EM131318269 , Length: 10

Outline for Final Paper -

In your final paper, focus on both identifying the types of arguments at play, as well as how these arguments construct their case. In each of the six shoe pieces, an overarching claim is advanced through use of several supporting arguments. Identify that overarching claim first. What is the main conclusion of the piece? Through explicit citation dale background reading, explain why its conclusion is a relevant concern given how the piece is best located within the broader debate.

Once you have contextualized the piece, identify the categories that are implicated by those terms through which the piece makes its case. Of the many points of departure available, what are the issues within the broader argument that this piece specifically engages? Again, cite the background literature to nuance the piece's terms, taking care to address how a piece might engage certain cumulative meanings of relevant terms (over against alternatives) to advance its own distinct argument. This involves clearly and concisely juxtaposing each piece with the works provided in the background information.

The above has now made space fur an analysis of a piece's own arguments, in its own terms. As such, identify the kind of arguments deployed in each piece. For instance, is a piece making a casual claim, arguing that a certain conclusion about the future is likely (perhaps even certain) if current trends continue? Alternatively, is a piece making a normative claim about identity, which involves an argument by definition? Make clear in your response that you are aware of the kinds of arguments being deployed in each of the debate's six pieces.

With the arguments involved now contextualized, identified, and their terms explored for broader nuance, demonstrate an awareness of, and aptitude with, logical analysis by clearly listing the conclusion argued in the piece, the premises deployed to infer those respective conclusion, and the connections allegedly necessary and sufficient to relate the premises within the argument at hand. How do the stated premises, "add up," to the offered conclusion? What does the debater explicitly state as relevant to the relationship and even more importantly, what implicit premises are left unstated and yet remain required for the argument to reach its offered conclusion?

Explore whether the respective conclusions that you identify in the various pieces require implicit premises that their debater left unsaid. Should a piece argue its case by way of categorical syllogism, solve for the unstated premise. If not a categorical syllogism, explain what fallacies the piece might risk if certain other premises are not included in its argument.

Cite and engage the background information to justify your own analysis here. Explore how (or perhaps how not) other categories in the contemporary discourse might be relevant to each piece, in ways that presumable must be engaged due to logic's total evidence requirement. Correctly in identifying each pieces overarching and constituent conclusions remains important. Just as important is demonstrating an aptitude with the premises, including an awareness of what is necessary to claim how and whether such premises arc correctly said to be true. What are the consequences for the pieces arguments, if specific premises are not accepted by the audience?

Attachment:- Assignment.rar