Argument and Issue task. Grade someone please?

[cosmicfaiz]

Issue Task-

Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated.

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 answer-

 

 

Technology is a crucial part of our lives. I strongly oppose the notion that technology makes our lives more complicated.
Technology has simplified our lives in many ways. Technology takes up a large part of our lives and is now considered a crucial part of our lives. From the people who are physically disabled, who are assisted in life with technology, to the budding generation of our homo sapien world are assisted in minor or major parts in life. The great physicist Stephen Hawkings given a time of just 3 years to live by the doctors after the detection of a very rare disease known as 'motor neuron disease' which disables the voice of the person and practically making the patient paralyzed permanently, is still alive. Stephen Hawking who now talks with a robotic voice with the help of a computer is a great example how technology is helping people in impossible ways globally. 
Technology is a very important part of the developement of the human race. Internet a part of the technology developed in the 20th century is now a teacher to many students all around the globe and specially to the poor countries where education is lagging behind drastically. Technology fills in all the gaps of people and gives people, from students to teachers to old people and practically everyone, an exposure and oppurtunity to the entire world. 
We are even able to explore many realms of the outer world and may very soon bump into other developed human like species of the universe. Like every coin has two sides, technology can be blamed for many ill habbits of people. People are misusing the internet and making internet a wasteful habbit instead of a helping hand. Technology is also detoriating our health in ways like it is disturbing our natural sleep pattern. Sticking to mobile phone late night is causing some serious health issues. But i would conclude that technology is more like a tool for the people, a tool which can be used in a positive way or negative way. Though technology is often seen to be used as a helping hand it is a crucial part of our lives.

 

 

Argument Task question-

SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's current headquarters. Moreover, Middleburg is a predominately urban area and according to an employee survey, SuperCorp has determined that its workers prefer to live in an area that is not urban. Finally, Corporateville has lower taxes than Middlesburg, making it not only a safer place to work but also a cheaper one. Therefore, Supercorp clearly made the best decision.

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

 

 

 

My answer- 

 

The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville cannot solely prove that Corporateville is a superior place to live in than Middlesburg. I strongly oppose the crux of this argument which i have explained further.
Evidently, the argument has referred to the employee survey which determines that its workers prefer to live in an area that is not urban, though no strong proof is provided stating why they donot prefer to live in urban area. Maybe it is because of the crime rate exploding in Middlesburg that the employees prefer to stay in a less urban area where crime rates are less and are considered relatively safer places. SuperCorp being moved to Corporateville can not be considered a substantial decision based on a employee survey. However, the survey can be biased if results of the survey are due to the booming inflation in Middlesburg which are forcing residents to consider different choices of place  of living. In this case some other fully developed urban area which shows less of inflation and crime rates can be considered and not only Corporateville.
Also, the argument states that Corporateville has lower taxes than Middlesburg making it cheaper which could be considered true but being a predominantly urban area and not fully urban can affect the availibility of daily house hold and consumption products which in turn can affect the prices of the less available products to rise high. The argument is flawed severly to count the fact that Corporateville owning more number of homeowners is a superior place than Middlesburg. It could be the geological area difference that Corporateville is bigger in size than Middlesburg and thus enabling Corporateville to hold on to more number of homeowners. Another explanation to this flawed assumption can be that population is exploding in Corporateville due to uneducated population which are unaware of hazards of dramatic population growth. 
The argument could have been warranted if a proper survey was conducted asking the reasons why most of the employees do not want to live in urban areas and also a detailed accumulation of facts about Corporateville as to why Corporateville is choosen as the headquaters of SuperCorp. Though this argument is flawed at many stages.

 

 

[anonymous052709]

Grade mine if you will! I will try to grade yours tonight. 

 

 

ESSAY 1

     People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are not necessarily poor decision makers, but rather they are inauthentic decision analyzers. I agree that there is an issue with this type of behavior, but the issue is not one of being a good or bad decision maker. One should instead focus on the fact that these types of people are either ignorant or in denial of their true motivations for making said decisions, and for this reason, it may appear that they are poor decision makers. It may appear this way because these types of people who have trouble analyzing their past decisions are much more likely to have a hard time learning from those decisions, and thereby repeating poor decision patterns more often.
     It is important to note the difference between a pre-decision logical deduction and a post-decision rationalization. A post-decision rationalization is what is being performed by the sort of people being discussed. the crucial difference between a rationalization and a logical deduction is that the pattern of logical deduction is equal to the decision making process, while the rationalization is a post-decision activity, and therefore does not alter the decision making process in any way. The fallacy in the aforementioned claim is just this - the fact that one cannot argue that a decision made based on emotion was actually made based on logic by positing the logic that could have been used to make that decision. 
    I will argue that it is possible for the logic one uses to rationalize a decision and the logic one could have used to deduce the decision initially, may actually be the same logical steps, using the same premises and logical operators. Had the claim read, "People who make decisions based on emotion and could have made better decisions based on logic are poor decision makers" it would be more sensible, because the pre-decision deductive logic has a value as far as being good or bad for the decision (valid or invalid in terms of argument). The claim at stake has an essential problem - that being the implication that a post-decision justification (what I term rationalization), somehow affects the quality of the decision process that preceded it. This is simply anachronistic and temporally impossible.
     I also want to point out that this claim does not posit a value difference between making decisions based on emotion, and making decisions based on logic. For a time when it is advisable to make an emotional decision, one should feel good about doing so, or bad about not doing so. The introduction of post-decision logic is irrelevant to this type of decision. Alternatively, in a time when it is not advisable to make an emotional decision, and one should instead make a logical decision, one who did so should feel accomplished, and one who did not do so should not feel they are a good decision maker, even if they were lucky and chose the right outcome based on emotion. 
     In order to learn from mistakes, one must use true information about the situation they are analyzing. This means they are to use true information and valid logic to arrive at a true conclusion. The essential flaw in the analyzed claim is that the decision makers are not using true information about what motivated their decision to consider it after the decision is made. Because of this, they will never be authentic with themselves about the real motivations for their decisions, and in doing so will never analyze the situation which actually occurred. Because of this, learning from their mistakes will prove very difficult.

 

 

ESSAY 2

     In order to determine whether the nation of Taugus- in doing everything it can to promote a new type of millet - will repair the people's vitamin A deficiency, several questions must be answered. First, it must be determined whether or not the new strain of millet has the same desired qualities of the old strains of millet which have been essential to the people of Taugus. Second, it remains to be seen whether the government of Taugus, being an impoverished nation, has the proper funds to execute this operation. Third, the health-related and environmental repercussions of the new variety must be evaluated in order to determine the effects of this proposition. 
     First of all, in order to give truth to the claim that "since millet is already a staple food in Taugus, people will readily adopt the new variety," it must be established that the new millet and old millet have the same qualities that are desired for by the people of Taugus. For example, it would be valuable to know what types of foods are made from millet, and whether the new millet lends itself to these textures, tastes, preparation methods, and recipes. If it does not, this threatens the truth value of the argument. Also, it would be helpful to have answered whether the new millet stores in a way that allows the people of Taugus to consume it just as readily as the old type of millet. In order for the new millet to function well in repairing the Vitamin A deficiency, it must be consumed just as much as the old millet and by as many people. If we were able to establish that the millet also stores and transports just as well or better than the old millet, we can agree with this claim. 
     Second, the financial situation of the country of Taugus must be analyzed to discover if the cost of the new millet could be deferred from the farmers to a more financially robust group, such as the sector of the government providing subsidies. If we were to find that the money was not available for these subsidies, then we would have to conclude that the plan to grow and establish this new Vitamin A rich form of millet would fail before it even reached the people, since the seeds are so expensive. If we can establish that the government can afford such and endeavor, then we can ground the claim that subsidies would offset the cost of the new variety. 
     Third, in order to predict whether this proposition would achieve the projected results, it must be researched whether the new variety of millet adversely affects the health of people or the environment. For example, if the new millet were to bring in an invasive pest that destroyed the next richest source of Vitamin A in the country, then we could conclude that the new Vitamin A rich millet has not served its purpose well, and has partially or entirely cancelled out its own intended effects. In addition, if the new millet was the first GMO product to be introduced to Taugus, it is possible that the health of other crops, animals, and people could be adversely affected in unpredictable ways. Perhaps though the people gain Vitamin A, the new millet causes new health concerns and thereby renders itself a more harmful than helpful introduction to the country. 
     In conclusion, there is hope that if these questions are answered in positive ways, that the new millet will have a good effect on the country of Taugus, and indeed the government should do everything it can to promote this new crop. However, we cannot successfully make this claim until several essential questions are answered, and we have the information to do so responsibly.

Edited October 23, 2015 by ashtonlg