Category: Philosophy homework help

Consider two types moral reasoning: Consequentialist and Non-Consequentialist approaches (and the specific theories involved).
Which of these theories, if any, do you find most reasonable, and why?
Provide a clear example to demonstrate your thinking.
400 words minimum. if you use sources include in text citation and references. 

Find an example of a fallacy used in popular advertising or any persuasive text. Upload the image/words or provide a link.
Identify the fallacy and why you think that this particular type of advertisement represents the fallacy that you have chosen.

Choose an advertisement on television, on the radio, on the Internet, or in print.
Describe, deconstruct, and analyze the advertisement by answering the following items:
Where did you find the advertisement ?
Briefly describe the scenario depicted in the advertisement.
What product is advertised?
Who is the audience for this advertisement? How do you know this?
Identify the main claim in the advertisement.
Is the claim credible? Why or why not? Use class terminology to explain.
What might make the claim more credible? What might make it less credible?
How does the author use rhetorical strategies to sell this product to its audience?
Does the advertisement reveal any cognitive biases? Which ones and how?
Your analysis must be at least 400 words in length and follow APA Style formatting and citation guidelines as appropriate.

Find a two-minute clip on any debate aired on the news in the last year.
Provide a link to the clip and address the following:
What is the context of the argument being made?
Identify at least two or three rhetorical devices used during this debate and explain their effect on the audience. Do you think the speakers use these intentionally? If so, for what purpose? If not, explain your reasoning.

Choose an advertisement on television, on the radio, on the Internet, or in print.
Describe, deconstruct, and analyze the advertisement by answering the following items:
Where did you find the advertisement ?
Briefly describe the scenario depicted in the advertisement.
What product is advertised?
Who is the audience for this advertisement? How do you know this?
Identify the main claim in the advertisement.
Is the claim credible? Why or why not? Use class terminology to explain.
What might make the claim more credible? What might make it less credible?
How does the author use rhetorical strategies to sell this product to its audience?
Does the advertisement reveal any cognitive biases? Which ones and how?
Your analysis must be at least 400 words in length and follow APA Style formatting and citation guidelines as appropriate.

Correctly cite sources in written work. Write with correct sentence structure, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Project presents a philosophical argument in epistemology, ethics, or metaphysics.  1000 words)
  
I

 
 In 250 words, answer the following questions: 
Think of an example from your life that addresses the following questions: is rhetoric more about explaining truths or about creating beauty? Can you articulate a beautiful untruth (i.e. a lie)? Can truths be beautiful or must they remain ugly? Have you ever shared an “ugly” truth? 
You must mention kairos, polis, or engage the ideas of the Sophists, Gorgias, Protagoras, and/or Aspasia discussed in class from the Herrick textbook. Write your answer in the form of a narrative. Don’t tell me. Show me. 
 Double space and use paragraphs. 

1. Explain what Tressie McMillan Cottom means when she says that US health care systems assume black women’s incompetence? Use specifics from the author’s argument as you summarize the main points.
2. As she conveys the story, how might Cottom’s pregnancy have been different had the health care workers involved read her as competent? What would have changed? Name the differences in detail and explain with specifics.
3. Name some A. stereotypes and B. structural features of modern health care that, according to Kidd & Carel, C. make patients especially vulnerable to epistemic injustice?
4. One kind of epistemic injustice in health care is testimonial injustice. A. Define testimonial injustice. B. Give an example of testimonial injustice from Cottom, Kidd & Carel. C. Explain what makes this example a testimonial injustice.
5. Another kind epistemic injustice in health care is hermeneutical injustice. A. Define hermeneutical injustice. B. Give an example of hermeneutical injustice from Cottom, Kidd & Carel. C. Explain what makes it hermeneutical injustice.

  
In around 250 words, explain the meaning and significance of the following passage in Descartes’ overall Cogito argument, from Meditations on First Philosophy: “What leads me to think that the wax exists – namely, that I see it – leads much more obviously to the conclusion that I exist. What I see might not really be the wax; perhaps I don’t even have eyes with which to see anything. But when I see or think I see (I am not here distinguishing the two), it is simply not possible that I who am now thinking am not something. Similarly, that I exist follows from the other bases for judging that the wax exists – that I touch it, that I imagine it, or any other basis, and similarly for my bases for judging that anything else exists outside me. As I came to perceive the wax more distinctly by applying not just sight and touch but other considerations, all this too contributed to my knowing myself even more distinctly, because whatever goes into my perception of the wax or of any other body must do even more to establish the nature of my own mind.” Then evaluate and/or criticize the extent to which Descartes argument that “I think, therefore, I am.” is indubitable.

 Instructions
Course Objectives
CO4: Evaluate and analyze various forms of argument for rhetorical devices, fallacies, and possible pseudo-reasoning. (Evaluate)
CO5: Create an argument free from logical errors. (Create)
Description:
The goal for the week seven presentation is to use a well-structured argument to persuade the audience of what you believe to be the truth using evidence from authoritative, unbiased sources as justification. You will use one of the three types of argument discussed in week six,  Classic, Toulmin, or Rogerian to present your case.
Note, you would do well to read the lesson from week six on these types of arguments before completing this assignment AND you will be free to modify your actual introduction to better align with your chosen type. A key graded component for each type of argument is producing a credible counterargument to your claim. If you cannot reasonably present a legitimate argument against your position, you need to rethink your topic. Rationally, if no one can argue against your position, there is no need for your argument.
Choose an issue you’d like to convince other people of and find resources that will be the foundation for the Week 7 PowerPoint. 
Here you will focus on ONLY the introductory paragraph and an annotated bibliography.
See the examples for formatting. At the least, the document should be double-spaced and the annotated references should be hanging indent.
Part I: Introduce your topic.
Using information from the textbook in chapters 5 and 6, as well as the lessons from weeks 4 and 5, write a proper introductory paragraph. This paragraph will contain your thesis and a rudimentary outline of your argument. 
This is NOT a rough draft and writing more than the introductory paragraph will result in a loss of points for not following directions. One consideration here is to provide enough for the instructor to provide proper guidance on how to best complete the PowerPoint. 
Part II: “Annotated bibliography”
The goal here is to provide a proper reference in the chosen style for a minimum of three resources you plan to use in your argument. After providing that reference, provide a short description of the main points in the work AND how you intend to use that information in your final PowerPoint. See the attached example for guidance.
You would be well advised to consult the week 7 assignment descriptions for clarity on expectations.
***EXAMPLE ATTACHED***