It is wrong for parents to allow children to watch violent movies

 

Link: Deductive Argument Example

Claim: It is wrong for parents to allow children to watch violent movies

Analysis: My argument is deductive. My first premise is the broad general principle that children daily face examples of violence in the real world. My next premise is that watching violent movies helps children to think about how to deal with violent behavior. My conclusion is that watching violent movies is okay for kids. This argument has indicator words “if” and “then” so it is truth-functional. It would be stated this way: If children face violence daily then they need to think about how to deal with it. Violent movies help them to think about violence and how to deal with it. Therefore, it is okay for children to watch violent movies.

Link: Inductive Argument Example

Claim: It is wrong for parents to allow children to watch violent movies

Analysis: This is an inductive argument. While the very first premise of the argument uses deductive reasoning, it is not part of a chain, so it is treated as Premise 1. Premise 2 is about the unreality of violent movies, and Premise 3 is about violence as a solution to conflict. Premise 4 compares the world of movie violence to real-world violence. These are four independent reasons, any one of which offers support that the conclusion, violent movies are not okay for children, is probably true.

Notice that the example contains no citations to outside sources. You must imagine this as a real-world situation in which you are talking with friends, families or co-workers, where references and outside sources are not available to you.

InstructionsRead the following argument examples in this activity.

Argument 1Dick and Jane have insured their house and cars with Farmer’s Mutual for 10 years. During this time, they filed only one claim for $500, and the premiums have risen 100%. Two weeks ago, while backing out of the garage, Jane damaged the right fender. They didn’t fix it, and yesterday, while Jane was parked at the supermarket, someone hit the right side of the car, damaging everything but the right fender. When Jane checks the insurance policy, she discovers that while the supermarket accident is covered, the damaged right fender is not.

Jane says, “Let’s claim that all the damage happened at the supermarket. It’s only fair. The insurance company has made thousands of dollars from our premiums alone, not to mention all the other people they insure, so they’ll hardly miss the few thousands that their repairs will cost. Many of their friends have done the same – included items that were not part of actual collision damage. It’s unlikely that they we will be discovered, because the fender could easily have been damaged in the collision.”

Argument 2In a world where medical resources are in ever-shorter supply, allocation of those resources is becoming an issue. Critical care units (ICU) put heavy demand on hospital resources. Adult medical intensive care units (MICU’s) are often occupied by elderly patients in the final stages of chronic illnesses. Neonatal ICU’s, however, are reserved for premature infants that need critical care in the first few days of life. Surveys of mortality rates in relation to amount of care for both units show that on a cost/benefit basis, outcomes for NICU patients are statistically better than those for MICU patients. Since hospitals should prioritize outcomes, it is clear that resources should be allocated more heavily to the NICU.

Using the examples in the introduction of this activity, address the following:

1. Briefly analyze each argument as follows:
   • State the issue and the conclusion.
   • For each argument, analyze the argument:
     • State if it is deductive or inductive.
     • Explain how the argument follows the form of an inductive or deductive argument.
   • Reference words, phrases, the structure of the argument, or any other facts or observations you believe support your claim.
2. Diagram the argument.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

• Length: 1-2 pages total (not including title page or references page)
• 1-inch margins
• Double spaced
• 12-point Times New Roman font
• Title page

Argument Analysis (W3) Grading Rubric – 75 pts

You’ve already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results.

Argument Analysis (W3) Grading Rubric – 75 pts

CriteriaRatingsPts

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTimeliness of Submission _8562

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

7.0 to >0.0 pts

Assignment submitted by due date.

_1730

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

Assignment not submitted by due date.

_6044

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

/ 7.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePassage 1 Identification _3396

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

10.0 to >8.5 pts

Premise and conclusion correctly stated.

_2985

Edit ratingDelete rating

8.5 to >7.5 pts

Conclusion and most premises correctly stated.

_6255

Edit ratingDelete rating

7.5 to >6.0 pts

Conclusion correctly stated OR premises correctly stated.

_158

Edit ratingDelete rating

6.0 to >0.0 pts

Student confuses premises with conclusions or vice-versa.

_5611

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

Premise and conclusion not stated.

_4371

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

/ 10.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePassage 2 Identification _6139

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

10.0 to >8.5 pts

Premise and conclusion correctly stated.

_482

Edit ratingDelete rating

8.5 to >7.5 pts

Conclusion and most premises correctly stated.

_9844

Edit ratingDelete rating

7.5 to >6.0 pts

Conclusion correctly stated OR premises correctly stated.

_7776

Edit ratingDelete rating

6.0 to >0.0 pts

Student confuses premises with conclusions or vice-versa.

_8529

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

Premise and conclusion not stated.

_4810

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

/ 10.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePassage 1 Diagram _8927

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

10.0 to >0.0 pts

Passage diagrammed correctly.

_8790

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

Passage diagrammed incorrectly.

_4596

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

/ 10.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePassage 2 Diagram _5140

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

10.0 to >0.0 pts

Passage diagrammed correctly.

_4338

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

Passage diagrammed incorrectly.

_4014

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

/ 10.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePassage 1 Analysis _828

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

14.0 to >11.75 pts

Student shows good comprehension of difference between inductive and deductive argument; discusses premises and how their evidence either necessarily or only probably leads to the conclusion; shows comprehension of how categorical arguments are distinguished from truth-functional arguments. Explanations are clear, use proper terminology and show understanding of terms and concepts.

_3955

Edit ratingDelete rating

11.75 to >10.5 pts

Student shows comprehension of difference between inductive and deductive argument; discusses premises and how their evidence either necessarily or only probably leads to the conclusion; recognizes that deductive arguments can be categorical or truth functional. Some explanation, but sometimes vague or lacks clarity.

_2842

Edit ratingDelete rating

10.5 to >8.5 pts

Student shows some comprehension of difference between inductive and deductive argument; some discussion of premises and how their evidence either necessarily or only probably leads to the conclusion; shows little comprehension of how categorical arguments are distinguished from truth-functional arguments. Explanation lacking altogether or vague, unclear.

_2191

Edit ratingDelete rating

8.5 to >0.0 pts

Student shows little comprehension of difference between inductive and deductive argument, little or no discussion of premises and how their evidence either necessarily or only probably leads to the conclusion; shows little or no comprehension of how categorical arguments are distinguished from truth-functional arguments. Explanations absent or unclear.

_8459

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

Student shows little or no comprehension of difference between inductive and deductive argument; no discussion of premises and how their evidence either necessarily or only probably leads to the conclusion; no comprehension or no mention of how categorical arguments are distinguished from truth-functional arguments.

_2435

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

/ 14.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePassage 2 Analysis _832

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

14.0 to >11.75 pts

Student shows good comprehension of difference between inductive and deductive argument; discusses premises and how their evidence either necessarily or only probably leads to the conclusion; shows comprehension of how categorical arguments are distinguished from truth-functional arguments. Explanations are clear, use proper terminology and show understanding of terms and concepts.

_6950

Edit ratingDelete rating

11.75 to >10.5 pts

Student shows comprehension of difference between inductive and deductive argument; discusses premises and how their evidence either necessarily or only probably leads to the conclusion; recognizes that deductive arguments can be categorical or truth functional. Some explanation, but sometimes vague or lacks clarity.

_2594

Edit ratingDelete rating

10.5 to >8.5 pts

Student shows some comprehension of difference between inductive and deductive argument; some discussion of premises and how their evidence either necessarily or only probably leads to the conclusion; shows little comprehension of how categorical arguments are distinguished from truth-functional arguments. Explanation lacking altogether or vague, unclear.

_1017

Edit ratingDelete rating

8.5 to >0.0 pts

Student shows little comprehension of difference between inductive and deductive argument, little or no discussion of premises and how their evidence either necessarily or only probably leads to the conclusion; shows little or no comprehension of how categorical arguments are distinguished from truth-functional arguments. Explanations absent or unclear.

_9834

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

Student shows little or no comprehension of difference between inductive and deductive argument; no discussion of premises and how their evidence either necessarily or only probably leads to the conclusion; no comprehension or no mention of how categorical arguments are distinguished from truth-functional arguments.

_5309

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

/ 14.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription of criterion

view longer description

Range

threshold: 5 pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

5to >0 pts

Full Marks

blank

Edit ratingDelete rating

0to >0 pts

No Marks

blank_2

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

/ 5 pts

—

Total Points: 75.0 out of 75.0

I’ll write free-form comments when assessing students

Remove points from rubric

Don’t post Outcomes results to Learning Mastery Gradebook

Use this rubric for assignment grading

Hide score total for assessment results

CancelCreate Rubric

Description

Long Description

CancelUpdate Criterion

Additional Comments:

CancelUpdate Comments

Additional Comments:

Rating Score

Rating max scoreto > pts

Rating Title

Rating Description

CancelUpdate Rating

Rubric

Can’t change a rubric once you’ve started using it.

Find a Rubric

Title: Find Rubric

Title

You’ve already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results.

Title

CriteriaRatingsPts

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription of criterion

view longer description

Range

threshold: 5 pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

5to >0 pts

Full Marks

blank

Edit ratingDelete rating

0to >0 pts

No Marks

blank_2

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

/ 5 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription of criterion

view longer description

Range

threshold: 5 pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

5to >0 pts

Full Marks

blank

Edit ratingDelete rating

0to >0 pts

No Marks

blank_2

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

/ 5 pts

—

Total Points: 5 out of 5

I’ll write free-form comments when assessing students

Remove points from rubric

Don’t post Outcomes results to Learning Mastery Gradebook

Use this rubric for assignment grading

Hide score total for assessment results

CancelCreate Rubric

Previous Previous: Week 3 Discussion 2: Understanding Deductive Categorical Reasoning Next Next Module: Week 4: Analyzing Arguments and Truth Functions

 

“PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH ASSIGNMENT HELP TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”