Dimah Final
The writing process...
...
Red Herring
..., A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion
Provencialism
...aa limited perspective shaped by the ideas, interest, and kinds of behavior favored by the groups with which we identify
Begging the question...
...begging the question the act of avoiding answering a question
Main points of Desert Storm......
...read on wikipedia
The process of evaluating extended arguments......
1. find thesis 2. find reasons that support thesis 3. identify evidence 4.identify responses to likely objections or counterarguments 5. skip whatever dosent argue for (or against) the thesis. 6. add relevant information or reasons 7.consider tone and emotive language 8.come to an evaluation
The author of The Heart of Darkness is...
Conrad
Deductive reasoning
Deductive Reasoning Deductive reasoning is a form of reasoning whereby the reasoner begins from general claims to specific ones. Let's look at what each step in the deductive reasoning process means. 1. The first step names a definitive property of X, whatever X is. Examples : Examples of Deductive Reasoning Every Triangle has three sides The figure I drew is a triangle This triangle I drew has three sides Creating a syllogism is a good way to test your deductive reasoning to ensure that it is valid. In deductive reasoning, if all the premises are true, so is the conclusion.
Inductive reasoning
Inductive Reasoning Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning that begins with a specific claim and proceeds to general claims. It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalizations. Inference can be done in four stages: Observation: collect facts, without bias. Analysis: classify the facts, identifying patterns o of regularity. Inference: From the patterns, infer generalizations about the relations between the facts. Confirmation: Testing the inference through further observation. Inductive Reasoning In an argument, you might: Derive a general rule in an accepted area and then apply the rule in the area where you want the person to behave. Give them lots of detail, then explain what it all means. Talk about the benefits of all the parts and only get to the overall benefits later. Take what has happened and give a plausible explanation for why it has happened. Inductive Reasoning Inductive arguments can include: Part-to-whole: where the whole is assumed to be like individual parts (only bigger). Extrapolations: where areas beyond the area of study are assumed to be like the studied area. Predictions: where the future is assumed to be like the past.
Legal Positivism
Legal positivism is the thesis that the existence and content of law depends on social facts and not on its merit. In a way, it is the separation of law and morals. Here the supposition is that human law is what humans have posited. Thus, immoral law is law. As such, there is no necessary connection between law an d morals. E.g., Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Scott v. Sanford (1857).
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in this case this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as construed by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to actions of the states
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which passed 5-4. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. The Supreme Court decided Miranda with three other consolidated cases: Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".[1] The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.
By definition concoctenated reasoning is...
a combination of inductions and deductions used to discover a pattern
What is critical thinking?
a form of reasoning whereby one reaches a conclusion by way of deductive and or inductive reasoning in order to avoid accepting a fallacy as truth.
Argument
a process of reasoning with three components : premise. claim, and conclusion.
According to the text, which of the following is not an example of militaryese? a.) selective ordinance b.) bafflegab c.) the final solution d.) comfort women
b.) bafflegab
Kinds of background beliefs...
backgrpund beliefs can be divided into beliefs about matter of fact and beliefs about values. world views or values insufficiently grounded beliefs p.19
Criminal law
enforcement of public moral code through sanction
Slippery slope
fallicious form of reasoning whereby one reasons that A will happen as a result of B with no evidence.
Pious Fraud
faulty reasoning process whereby on attributes an action or event to be caused by God.
A common everyday reasoning is called..
indirect proof
Slanting sometimes goes under the name of........
innuendo
Civil law
laws that provide citizens with the means of resolving a private dispute
The most common form of self deception is......
procrastination
Main points of Port Chicago......
read on wikipedia
Drawing strictly from the text, indicate how Republicans and Democrats doublespeak according to Leo's article. Use at least 5 terms each.......
republican -democrat climate change-global warming trial lawyer-personal injury lawyer faith based- religious school choice-school vouchers tax relief- tax cuts illegal- undocumented fetus- uterine contents military difficulties-quagmire
What is the essence of critical thought?
the essence of critical thought is to think about thinking, to suspend judgement and ask more questions, to challenge social norms or that status quo , to probe and analyze.t
Hasty Conclusion
the fallicious reasoning whereby one reaches a conclusion from relevent but insufficient evidence
PC-Politically Correct
to be politically correct means to use a lnaguage in such as way so as not to offend anyonne.
Other common rhetorical devices...
tone- expression of attitudes or feelings when writing or speaking. slanting- a form of misrepresentation. weasel words-- locutions that appear to make little or no change in the content of of a statement while in fact sucking out all or most of its content. fine print disclaimers- a trick used to take back in the(usually) unread fine print what is claimed in the most easily read part of the document. obfuscation-to be so confusing or opaque by offering a barrage of details to cloud judgement and deter questions.
The fallacy otherwise known as " you are another" is best described as.......
tu quoque
The Strawman fallacy is said to be committed when....
we go after a weaker opponent while ignoring a stronger one.
