Jump to content

Radwa

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Radwa

  1. The Task: The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal. "A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, which primes the body for increased activity levels, as do their younger siblings. Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations (such as the return of a parent after an absence). The study also found that during pregnancy, first-time mother monkeys had higher levels of cortisol than did those who had had several offspring." Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument. My Response: The argument stated in the paragraph relies upon several logic fallacies which makes the author’s argument feeble and prone to criticism. The author is attempting to convey a certain unstated assumption that is drawn from fallacious arguments. Several types of logic fallacies are found in the paragraph, such as causal fallacy, false analogy and survey fallacy. Thus, the following paragraphs shall discuss the fallacies found in the author’s line of reasoning made in his/her concluding assumption. Firstly, the argument relies upon the assumption that stimulating situations that rhesus monkeys encounter have an effect on their firstborn, which makes them produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, increasing their activity levels of stimulation. This is a classical case of logical fallacy named the causal fallacy. Too many other factors may affect the reasoning as well. For example, other situations may cause the same effects in monkeys, such as the death of a friend, the lack of food, or a fight with another monkey. In addition, the paragraph mentions at first that the study is conducted to reveal the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation, which is never shown in the study results. This is conveyed in the author’s phrase, “so do their younger siblings”, which confirms the logical fallacy found in the study, as the same reaction to stimulating situation is seen in the younger siblings. Thus, birth order has no impact whatsoever on their levels on stimulation. Secondly, the argument relies upon what may amount to a feeble analogy between monkeys and humans. In order for this reasoning to work, the author must assume that all relevant variables must be comparable. Nevertheless, the assumption is not justified. The author fails to consider possible differences between monkeys and humans that might prevent the replication of the same result. Moreover, the author has no sound evidence that the study is conducted on humans. Therefore, the disposition that “Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations” is irrelevant, although it is understood that the author has added it as an unstated assumption that humans’ reaction to the stimulation resembles that of monkeys. Thirdly, the quality of the study results might be problematic in two respects. First, it is not informed who conducted the study. If the study in instituted by an organization or a company that gains benefit from it, the results might be distorted and unreliable. Second, it is not informed whether the survey responses are confidential. If not, then subjects might provide false information. In either case, the results would be unreliable and provide little support to the argument. The argument only mentions that the study is conducted on only eighteen rhesus monkeys. The author never mentions a specific number of any human subjects in the study, as he/she did for the rhesus monkeys; although the author’s unstated assumption is that humans’ and monkeys’ reactions to stimulating situations are alike. Thus, the argument does not provide sound evidence that the study has used humans as subjects in its research. In conclusion, the argument could have been stronger, if the author has supported his/her assumption regarding the resemblance between reactions of rhesus monkeys and those of humans to stimulating situations. He/ She could have done that by stating concrete examples, rather than the “encounter with an unfamiliar monkey” or “the return of a parent after an absence”. The author could have also bolstered his/her unstated assumption by giving more proof that the study has been conducted on human subjects, rather than only giving a specific number for only rhesus monkeys. As such, an analogy could have been drawn more correctly. The weaknesses of the argument have caused it to contain an illogical group of premises which led to an implausible assumption made by the author.
  2. The Task: As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. My response: The author sates that the ability of humans to free-think will gradually decrease as a result of the increasing reliance by human beings on technology for solving their problems.Although the statements contains some reasoning; I actually disagree with it for several reasons, which to be discussed in the following paragraphs. Firstly, the statement presumes that there is some sort of a struggle between humans and technology. We cannot depend on the idea that the world is caught up in an artificial intelligence versus human intelligence game. There is no sound evidence that technology is to control our minds or deprive us of our nature of free thinking. The contrary has actually been proven. Human control on technology is much stronger than the opposite. For instance, it is human who create, use, modify and eliminate technologies, not the other way around. It is humans who are able to manipulate technology and use it for good or for evil. Therefore, technology is merely a tool in humans’ hands that they have to use for solving their problems, which actually requires more thinking by humans in order to know how to use such tool in a way that could make them benefit from it. Secondly, technology, as a tool, in humans’ hands has assisted in many aspects in our life. Technology is regularly developed by researchers and scientists, each according to their milieu, in order to make use of technological advances in conducting researches, studies, surveys, etc. for example, scientists who participate in developing new discoveries that can be used for military purposes are the ones who are able to control their technologies by the means of thinking. Also, technology is helpful for researchers who now have access to all types of knowledge needed for their researches, whereas in the past, it was an agony for a researcher to find the knowledge they were searching for. Thirdly, Aristotle has a notorious statement, “humans are rational animals”, which many humans believed for centuries. Thus, the mentioned statement negates human nature. It is not a matter of artificial intelligence versus human intelligence, as the features of both are incomparable. As we are created as thinkers, there is no possibility that technology can erase such trait in humans. Technology needs more thinking to be developed, as well as to be sustained. Therefore, if humans’ ability to think is to deteriorate, technology will no longer exist, rather it will deteriorate too. Indeed, there is some reasoning in the statement regarding the continuing reliance on technology. For instance, humans became heavily users of technology in their every-day life, using remote controls, electronic devices, mobile phones, cars, electronic networking, for purposes of social communication, conducting business, entertainment and knowledge seeking. It is undeniable that such reliance has its consequences on human lives. However, we can never prove that these actions are able to decrease free thinking in humans, as thinking is a method of expressing free will which is a natural trait of humans and lacking it could cause humans extinction.
  3. The task: Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument. My response: The argument stated in the paragraph relies upon several logic fallacies which makes the author’s argument feeble and prone to criticism. The author is attempting to convey a certain unstated assumption that is drawn from fallacious arguments. Several types of logic fallacies are found in the paragraph, such as causal fallacy, false analogy and survey fallacy. Thus, the following paragraphs shall discuss the fallacies found in the author’s line of reasoning made in his/her concluding assumption. Firstly, the argument relies upon the assumption that stimulating situations that rhesus monkeys encounter have an effect on their firstborn, which makes them produce up to twice as much of the hormone cortisol, increasing their activity levels of stimulation. This is a classical case of logical fallacy named the causal fallacy. Too many other factors may affect the reasoning as well. For example, other situations may cause the same effects in monkeys, such as the death of a friend, the lack of food, or a fight with another monkey. In addition, the paragraph mentions at first that the study is conducted to reveal the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation, which is never shown in the study results. This is conveyed in the author’s phrase, “so do their younger siblings”, which confirms the logical fallacy found in the study, as the same reaction to stimulating situation is seen in the younger siblings. Thus, birth order has no impact whatsoever on their levels on stimulation. Secondly, the argument relies upon what may amount to a feeble analogy between monkeys and humans. In order for this reasoning to work, the author must assume that all relevant variables must be comparable. Nevertheless, the assumption is not justified. The author fails to consider possible differences between monkeys and humans that might prevent the replication of the same result. Moreover, the author has no sound evidence that the study is conducted on humans. Therefore, the disposition that “Firstborn humans also produce relatively high levels of cortisol in stimulating situations” is irrelevant, although it is understood that the author has added it as an unstated assumption that humans’ reaction to the stimulation resembles that of monkeys. Thirdly, the quality of the study results might be problematic in two respects. First, it is not informed who conducted the study. If the study in instituted by an organization or a company that gains benefit from it, the results might be distorted and unreliable. Second, it is not informed whether the survey responses are confidential. If not, then subjects might provide false information. In either case, the results would be unreliable and provide little support to the argument. The argument only mentions that the study is conducted on only eighteen rhesus monkeys. The author never mentions a specific number of any human subjects in the study, as he/she did for the rhesus monkeys; although the author’s unstated assumption is that humans’ and monkeys’ reactions to stimulating situations are alike. Thus, the argument does not provide sound evidence that the study has used humans as subjects in its research. In conclusion, the argument could have been stronger, if the author has supported his/her assumption regarding the resemblance between reactions of rhesus monkeys and those of humans to stimulating situations. He/ She could have done that by stating concrete examples, rather than the “encounter with an unfamiliar monkey” or “the return of a parent after an absence”. The author could have also bolstered his/her unstated assumption by giving more proof that the study has been conducted on human subjects, rather than only giving a specific number for only rhesus monkeys. As such, an analogy could have been drawn more correctly. The weaknesses of the argument have caused it to contain an illogical group of premises which led to an implausible assumption made by the author.
  4. This is my first attempt to write an argument essay ever! so I was hoping that someone would tell me the deficiencies of my writing style, organization, grammar, structure, and most importantly my argument skills, if I have any, considering that English is not my second language. Thanks in advance. Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument. The argument stated in the paragraph includes a number of presumptions that are mostly far from logical coherence. The author’s conclusion is driven from logical fallacies, as can be shown in the relation between the cause and effect the author has confirmed. The author concludes that the “so-called” Palean baskets have not actually been Palean. Such conclusion is derived from some premises, such as archaeologists finding the mentioned baskets in Lithos which is separated from Palea by a deep and broad river. The author also disposes that such river can never be crossed by Paleans, unless they have had boats which have never been found in the area. The author has also some unstated assumptions from which they drive their conclusion. Such assumptions, premises, and conclusion shall be refuted in the following paragraphs. Firstly, regarding the author’s mentioning archaeologists’ opinions, such as evidence appears to be faulty as it indicates a survey fallacy. As for the archaeologists have never been able to discover Palean baskets in Lithos, this can never be considered as concrete evidence, as there are many methods for woven baskets to be transported during the ancient eras. Such methods of transportation may include animals, bridges, some kind of vehicles, among other things. In addition, the author never mentions any numbers resulting from the archaeologists’ survey. Also, there is no evidence that there has not been any commercial transactions between the two cities, Lithos and Palea, in which such baskets were transported. As such, the author should have mentioned commercial transactions between the two cities, as a premise which they could have driven a more concrete conclusion as well as evidence. Secondly, the author mentions the deep and broad Brim River separating Lithos from Palea as an obstacle for Paleans to cross to the other side, and hence, hindering them from transporting their crafted baskets to Lithos. Such premise is not based on sound evidence, as rivers can be crossed by bridges for instance. The author also never assumes that the Paleans could have used animals as a means of transportation during the elder times. Furthermore, the Palean baskets could have been drifted to Lithos by an act of nature. Moreover, the author never assumes that an ancient river is subject (prone) to geographical and natural factors that may cause it to deepen or widen. Some rivers can even be eroded during a long period of time. Thus, the author’s evidence that is bolstered by the depth and broadness of the Brim River is not a strong one, as it disregards many geographical and natural fators. Thirdly, the author builds his/her conclusion on yet another fallacious assumption which is that the Paleans have never built any vessels, as no boats have been found in the area. Such assumption is built according to unproven results of some unknown surveys. Are the mentioned archaeologists specialized in studying the debris of ancient woven baskets or that of ancient vessels? What is the author’s proof that the area has been excavated for debris of ancient vessels? The paragraph never reveals any evidence regarding the premise that Paleans would not have crossed the deep river merely because no boats have been found. Therefore, such assumption is based on a survey fallacy. Lastly, the author’s evidence is not adequately sound to be the basis on which they can build a conclusion. Assuming that the baskets are not Palaen needs more concrete evidence, for instance surveys made by specialists or a study of the geographical and historical characteristics of the area. Such requirements are not provided by the author’s proposition. Thus, the paragraph lacks a concrete premise, convincing evidence, and a rationally drawn conclusion.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use