Job

/in /by

1 page how to apply for job 

 

This week’s initial Discussion Board posts come from two chapters, i.e., chapters 10 and 12. First, go to Chapter 10 and review pages 243-246. Select any one (1) exercise and complete it. Be sure to copy the exercise and the rewritten, corrected sentences.

Chapter 12’s assignment is an adaptation of Exercise 2 on page 333. In short, you need to design a flowchart for a process you are familiar with, such as applying for a summer job, studying for a test, preparing a paper, cooking a recipe, or performing some task at work. Your audience is someone who will be carrying out the process.

This is the example for chapter 10

 

2. Referring to the advice on page 216, rewrite each of the following sentences to eliminate comma splices.mandefro_flowchart.docxmandefro_flowchart.pdf 

 Splice:

Porsche has won the J.D. Power new-model satisfaction award more than any other car maker, the Germany company is expected to win next year,too.

   Rewritten sentence:

Porsche has won the J.D. Power new-model satisfaction award more than any other car maker. The Germany company is expected to win next year, too.

Splice:

The federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is developing new regulations for offshore oil and gas operations in the Arctic, these regulations are expected to be ready for review later this year.

  Rewritten sentence:

The Federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is developing new regulations for offshore oil and gas operations in the Arctic, and these regulations are expected to be ready for review later this year.

Does Kantianism provide a plausible theory of right conduct?

/in /by

  

W‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍rite a paper (1,250-1,500 words) about one of the three topics below. (Your paper must be on one of these topics in order to receive credit). Your essay should be typed and double-spaced with one-inch margins. Use 12 point font. Your essay should refer to the readings and should include a works-cited page at the end (the works-cited page does not count towards the final word count). Your paper should also have an informative title.

Topic 1. Does Kantianism provide a plausible theory of right conduct? If you think that it does, then (i) spell out the strongest objection that opponents of Kantianism can make and (ii) provide an argument that shows why this objection fails. If you think that it does not, then (i) spell out your objection to Kantianism, (ii) spell out the strongest response that proponents of Kantianism can make to your objection, and (iii) spell out a reply to this response. Topic 2: In non-life-and-death situations, is it morally permissible to eat animals that were killed for food? If you think that it is morally permissible to eat animals that were killed for food, then (i) spell out the strongest argument for your view, (ii) spell out the strongest objection that your opponents can make to your argument, and (iii) reply to your opponent’s objection.

You should also clarify the scope of your view. For instance, do you think it is permissible for everyone to eat animals that were killed for food, or just some people? https://homeworkharbour.info/papers And if it is only permissible for certain people to eat animals that were killed for food, why is this permissible for them but not for others. If you think that it is morally impermissible to eat animals that were killed for food, then (i) spell out the strongest argument for your view, (ii) spell out the strongest objection that your opponents can make to your argument, and (iii) reply to your opponent’s objection. You should also clarify the scope of your view.

Topic 3. Does Virtue Ethics provide a plausible theory of right conduct?If you think that it does, then (i) spell out the strongest objection that opponents of Virtue Ethics can make and (ii) provide an argument that shows why this objection you think that it does not, then (i) spell out your objection to Virtue Ethics, (ii) spell out the strongest response that proponents of Virtue Ethics can make to your objection, and (iii) spell out a reply to this response. Template1. IntroductionAimStrategy Roadmap* This is your opportunity to show that you can clearly lay out the blueprint for a big project. https://homeworkbay.info/content/ After reading the intro, your reader should have an excellent idea of what the paper will try to do and how it will try to do it.

2. The View Under DiscussionLay out the view that you will be investigating- Say what motivates the view/lay out the theory of Lay out the theory of r‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍ight conduct. * This is your opportunity to show that you have mastered the view that you are talking about. After reading this section, it should be clear to your reader that you have a deep understanding of the major components of the view that you will be discussing. * If you are not writing about an ethical theory, this section can be pretty short and/or combined with Section 13.

Spell out the strongest objection that opponents are likely to Make sure you explain the motivation behind the controversial premises, ., make sure that you explain the reasoning that leads to each Make sure you have stated the argument in a way that the premises support the conclusion. 4. Provide an argument that shows why the objection in section 3 fails. – Make sure you explain part of the argument you are responding to, ., are you objecting to a specific premise, are you going to argue that while all of the premises are true, the argument is invalid… – Make sure that you have stated your argument in a way that the premises support the conclusion.

* These two sections give you the opportunity to demonstrate your ability to extract, explain, and evaluate an argument; it should be clear to your reader what the argument in section 3 aims to show and it should be clear to your reader why your think that this argument ultimately fails. Option 2 and Option 33. Spell out your objection to the Make sure you explain the motivation behind the controversial premises, ., make sure that you explain the reasoning that leads to each Make sure you have stated the argument in a way that the premises support the conclusion.

4. Provide an argument that tries to show why the objection in section 3 fails. – Make sure you explain which part of the argument your opponents are responding to, ., are they going to object to a specific premise, are they going to argue that while all of the premises are true, the argument is invalid… – Make sure that you have stated your argument in a way that the premises support the an argument that shows why the objection in section 4 Make sure you explain which part of the argument you are responding to, ., are you going to object to a specific premise, are you going to argue that while all of the premises are true, the argument is invalid… –

Make sure that you have stated your argument in a way that the premises support the conclusion.* These three sections give you the opportunity to demonstrate your ability to extract, explain, and evaluate an argument; it should be clear to your reader what the argument in section 3 aims to show, why your opponents think that this argument is unsound, and why you think that your opponent’s argument ultimately ConclusionBriefly sum up what you hav‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍e done.

Purchase Power Parity Response

/in /by

Requesting 200 words response to the following post using at least three substantive peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles (different than in the below post) to provide those substantive replies.   You may utilize the main article as a reference.  

 

Purchasing Power Parity and Why I Am Interested

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is a compelling research topic for two reasons. First, it is an interesting theoretical tool used for measuring and forecasting national and international economic cost approximations within the global economic system. It accomplishes this objective by looking at the foreign exchange rate between two currencies and determining the variance in price for a similar product. Finally, PPP is also used as a tool to simplify how we look at the complex array of global exchanges behind the creation and distribution of a product globally.

I am interested in conducting further research on PPP due to academic curiosity. Our assigned readings highlighted the perils of relying on it as an accurate theoretical measurement tool and an indicator of cross approximation across markets. PPP does not consider regional disparities in materials, quality, and production that are present when the same product is produced in myriad markets across the globe. Overall, having a better understanding of PPP and its strengths and weaknesses as theoretical measurement tool will enhance my comprehension of systemic economic data interactions in the future.

Explanation of Purchasing Power Parity

PPP is a theoretical metric that attempts to measure national or regional economic status or forecast economic trends. Specifically, it is an exchange rate theory that proposes that equivalent or similar products in different nations should have a comparable price when looking at the foreign currency exchange rate between the two nations’ domestic currencies (Satterlee, 2018). PPP offers a straightforward way of looking at price similarities and differences between the same or comparable products across the globe. Overall, it allows for an easier way of seeing how changes in exchange rates correspond to the changes in the price of a similar product between nations.

As I briefly touched on earlier, PPP does not consider differences in quality, materials, and production processes that are inherent in the global marketplace (Satterlee, 2018). With that in mind, it is important to remember two things. First, PPP is one of many economic indicators that should be taken into consideration when measuring an economic status or attempting to accurately forecast economic trends. Finally, PPP is not always useful in trying to understand imbalances in exchange rates.

Major Article Summary

Gyamfi (2017) conducted a study of Brazil, Russia, India, China (PR), and South Africa. Collectively, these nations are known as the BRICS nations and conduct a significant amount of trade between each other. In the study, the author looked at cointegration of exchange rates and relative prices. His study was focused on two outcomes. First, Gyamfi wanted to determine if the cointegration was linear or nonlinear amongst the BRICS. Linear cointegration would validate PPP and nonlinear cointegration would disprove PPP as an outgrowth of significant trade between the BRICS nations. Finally, he used the same data to determine the validity of the main supposition of PPP when measured between the BRICS and the United States. The main theoretical supposition is based on the law of one price. This theory was discussed in our assigned readings and simply means that the same product should have an approximate value across the globe (Gyamfi, 2017; Satterlee, 2018).

Gyamfi (2017) used monthly data on nominal exchange rates for the BRICS nations’ currencies against the U.S. dollar and consumer price index (CPI). The data used was from January 1993 to December 2015. The author used a two-part methodology to test these numbers and determine cointegration and the validity of PPP theory amongst the BRICS nations and the United States. He used the Rank and Score Testing of Breitung in his work. This is a test procedure based on rank that attempts to measure the concept of cointegration in a linear and nonlinear fashion (Breitung, 2001). Gyamfi’s work elicited two results. First, it determined that cointegration was only found between the United States and China (PR) during the period tested. Finally, the data provided numerical evidence that the main theoretical supposition behind PPP did not apply when looking for cointegration between the nominal exchange rates and relative prices of Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (Gyamfi, 2017).

Discussion

The work by Gyamfi demonstrates two factors when endeavoring to understand PPP’s strengths and weaknesses as a trend analysis and forecasting tool. First, while it is sometimes a viable explanatory mechanism, PPP is not always useful for providing correlative data between nominal exchange rates and relative price similarities and differences. It can be a valuable theoretical tool but must be viewed in concert with other factors. Additionally, it shows the caution that must be taken when looking at any economic indicator without additional context. While PPP can sometimes offer a straightforward metric to explain price similarities or differences between similar global products, it does not consider a host of other factors that influence foreign exchange rates and similar product price approximations across international markets (Satterlee, 2018). As with seafaring, economics is an art and a science that requires equal parts nuance, logic, knowledge, and a bit of luck. Overall, a holistic knowledge of market theory, metrics, and processes combined with an intimate understanding of cultural dimensions and their effects on a specific market will better equip a global manger to be successful.

As I discussed previously, Gyamfi (2017) used Rank and Score testing to determine if there was cointegration between the exchange rates and relative prices between the BRICS nations or between the BRICS nations and the United States. Cointegration would prove the validity of PPP. His findings determined that cointegration only existed between China (PR) and the United States and, thus, PPP validity only existed between these two nations during the period tested and not among the BRICS nations.

Rawlins (2016) conducted an empirical analysis of 19 developing Sub-Saharan African nations and five industrialized nations to test the main theoretical tenet of PPP. His findings raised significant doubts about the main theoretical supposition of PPP when looking at the African nations, but not when analyzing the industrial economies of the US, Japan, the UK, France, and Germany. Overall, it points to an inversely proportional relationship between PPP validity and a nation’s economic stability and stage of development.

Bahmani-Oskooee et al. (2015) conducted an empirical examination of the transitioning economies of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Russia to determine if long-run PPP validity exists. The authors take a different approach by examining the real exchange rate instead of the relationship between the nominal exchange rate and relative prices. Overall, the findings demonstrated that there is weak evidence to support long-run PPP validity in the nations that were studied.

Chang and Tzeng (2013) studied the long-run PPP validity in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Russia from 1995 to 2008. The authors utilized a complex combination of non-linear root testing to determine that long-run PPP validity does not exist between these nine transitioning nations. They do postulate that as these transitioning economies continue to open to trade, there will be stronger PPP correlation between the countries in the future.

Jiang et al. (2015) conducted an empirical analysis of 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations from 1994 to 2013. The analysis attempted to determine if PPP theory was valid in any capacity amongst the 34 nations. The authors utilized another form of root testing as part of their analysis. Overall, the results showed that PPP was valid for half of the 34 OECD nations analyzed. This fact is because OECD member nations range from industrialized to transitioning economies.

The scholarly literature I chose to focus on demonstrates two factors among the nations studied and analyzed. First, there is an inversely proportional relationship between PPP validity and a nation’s economic stability and stage of development. Finally, PPP remains a strong economic indicator for industrialized nations who participate in the global economy. Overall, PPP is a valuable economic metric if it is taken in context and used with other information.

  

References

Chang, T., & Tzeng, H. (2013). Purchasing power parity in nine transition countries: Panel SURKSS test. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 18(1), 74-81. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1002/ijfe.457

http://liberty.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=eNqVzkELgjAYxvERBmkFfYQdu2jvKjO7iSwbxZRtEp1GhIJSGu7Ut0-hL9DpeQ7_w89BVtM2BUILAh4BWK-quiy8rR-MkE0gDF1C_L01_GDnhhsIJsgxpgaAnR-AjZIsF_EpkownOEuvVOAsEkzdMOOYM06xEhGXTLGU4zjNuRKMykMfcXrBMhdnKbGiUs3QuLw_TTH_7RQtj1TFJ_fRtcZ0RanfXfW6dx9NQA9QPUB1D938kX4B9rg_3w

Chun, J., Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Chang, T. (2015). Revisiting purchasing power parity in OECD. Applied Economics, 47(40), 4323-4334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2015. 1026592/

http://liberty.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=eNp9kF1PwjAUhhuDiYD-BJNdG4fnrGu33kkQPxISiNHrpivdqBmbaYeEf08neOvN-cr7nnPyjMigaRtDyC3CBCGHBwCgPE_5JAFkYZRwJpILMsSU8zhNcjogw14T96IrMvL-K7SY0GxI7t7Nj_W2s00VrXZOb5T_Ldu9cdFKOdsdIttEy_ns6Zpclqr25uacx-Tzef4xe40Xy5e32XQRa9ofLDQTRgAUa5Zna0AUGgXTimdcYZlTLI3RaYJclJhlyDIKIk-ZLnQwUA10TO5PeytVG1nswkPGh-Bttel8pXbey2lKGQeKAoOcneTatd47U8pvZ7fKHSSC7PnIPz6y5yPPfILv8eSzTdm6rdq3rl7LTh3q1pVONdp6Sf9fcQSJNGt7

Gyamphi, E. (2017). Testing the validity of the purchasing power parity in the BRICS: Further evidence. EuroEconomica, 2(36), 117-122. 

http://liberty.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=eNptz19LwzAQAPAgE5xz38CHgK8W8qdtLr7p2OZgaNHia0mT1HWUZqat4rc3s4I-eC934X7cXc7RpHWtPUFTmgCLABI5-VOfoXnX7UkIzkCkMEUPue36un3F_c7iF9XUpu4_satwNni9U92xlbkP63Gm_LFVt9_07mmzeL7Bq8GHl8fL99rYVtsLdFqpprPznzxD-WqZL-6j7eN6s7jdRjqWNKoIcE10TEqQxBBZykpwJihPpEpjoSS1VZkmMYk5M-FYBglolQjLDGNSaD5DV-PYg3dvQ_hBsXeDb8PGglEKHAQADep6VNpa1_wS5ftaN7YwTheCxZSR4mCqwC__5SPhX4MjZEA

Oskooee, M., Chang, T., & Wu, T. (2015). Purchasing power parity in transition countries: Panel stationary test with smooth and sharp breaks. International Journal of Financial Studies, 3(2), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs3020153

http://liberty.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=eNpNUdtKAzEQDaJgvTz5AwEfpZrLZpP4psVLQbDQ-hxmdxOb2iY12aX0791akc7LmZkznDnDnKHjEINF6IqSW841ufMLlzlhhAp-hAaMMTmURLLjg_wUXea8IH1oyhXXA1RPulTPIfvwiSdxYxOeQPLtFvuAZwlC9q2PAY9iF9rkbb7v-WCXeNrCjoC0xTObW7zx7RxPVzH2AKHB0zmkNX5MFr7yBTpxsMz28g_P0cfz02z0Onx7fxmPHt6GlAuphiVwAEtBMO5UI0onKkaFAKa1rqUspVCyJk6xviDMNbIUJQUNSlPlRCH5ORrvdZsIC7NOftXbMxG8-W3E9Gkgtb5eWlNUvKKFdEVFoXANr1RdlFQXumq4bhjvta73WusUv7v-QrOIXQq9fUNLLbRUsthN3eyn6hRzTtb9b6XE7J5iDp7CfwAXyH-t

Rawlins, G. (2016). Sub-Sahara’s experience with the purchasing power parity hypothesis. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 18(2), 22-27. 

http://liberty.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/search?bookMark=eNotjstqwzAURLVIIY_mHwRddGWQLOtxl8WkTSEQQ7LoLsj2da1QJFeySfP3NbSrGTgwZ9Zk4YPHBVnxAiBTwD-WZJ3SlTElmBArUp6mOjvZ3kb7nOjuZ8Do0DdIb27s6dgjrabY9DY5_0mrcMNIKxvdeKf7-xBmnlx6JA-d_Uq4_c8NOb_uzuU-Oxzf3suXQ8aNzDNrsNFtIXjearDzFalzxqCVWNSq1qAVNCLvOlN3rGFSMLQGrAQj0LC5ig15-psdYvieMI2Xa5iin40XbjiAKJTJxS8s7kYZ

Satterlee, B. (2018). Cross Border Commerce (3rd ed.). Synergistics International Inc.

NURS-6003N Discussion 1

/in /by

  

Networking Opportunities

In this module, you begin laying the foundation for your academic and professional success. Your efforts begin with a vision that includes your own definition of success. Your vision may vary from those of your colleagues, but this does not mean you have to take these first steps alone.

Walden University and the College of Nursing also have a vision and mission, which include helping you to make your own vision a reality. Members of your new academic community, such as faculty, support teams, and fellow students, can also be helpful. Current practitioners and other member of the professional community can also help you to clarify your vision.

This Module’s Discussion asks you to consider how the Walden mission and vision as well as the College of Nursing’s mission and vision apply to your professional and academic goals. You will also begin to identify individuals and teams who can help you along the way as you begin designing the “blueprint”—your Academic Success and Professional Development Plan—that will guide you toward your own vision for academic and professional success.

To Prepare:

  • Review      the Walden and College of Nursing mission and vision statements, Walden’s      goals and University Outcomes, and the MSN Program Learning Outcomes      presented in this Module’s Learning Resources. – https://catalog.waldenu.edu/
  • Reflect      on your professional and academic goals as they relate to your      program/specialization.
  • Consider      how the information in these resources fit with your own goals and to your      becoming a scholar-practitioner.
  • Also      consider academic and professional individuals and teams with whom you may      collaborate in support of your efforts as a student at the university and      as a professional within your organization and career.

minimum 400 words

Scientific Method

/in /by

Overview

The purpose of this discussion and the material that informs it is to insure that you understand the process of science, how scientific integrity is maintained, and to muse upon why the degree of science denial in the U.S. is greater than it was in the recent past. In this first graded discussion you address each of the 3 separate but overlapping, science related issues in the title, and address each in your original post.

Instructions

Read the 8 Roman numeral headed sections of the Understanding Science 101 website: Understanding Science, how science really works! 

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_01

Next, View the video, Science in America (4:41), a Ted Talks video by Neil deGrasse Tyson.Tyson, a cosmologist, is without argument – the scientist best known to the general public today. I highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with his biography via Wikipedia if he is new to you.

After you have finished studying the website material and viewing the video, compose and make a post of 3 paragraphs by responding to each of the following 3 questions. In addition, make critical comments on the posts of at least 3 other students.

See the Discussion rubric for quality and quantity expectations for both the original post and your commentary.

Paragraph 1: Outline in logical order what you consider to be the most important elements of the scientific method – and why.  End your paragraph with a sentence or two about why you think the process of science has been so successful throughout recent history.

Paragraph 2: Define plagiarism and tell what part of the process of science keeps plagiarism at a minimum.

Paragraph 3: Currently, in the U.S. science denial along with the new notion of alternative facts are frequently in the news. With all of the advancements in medicine, technology and other areas of research, why do you think that some citizens don’t seem to trust “science”?

*Use 4-5 academic references in APA format with in-text citations in your initial post!

Citing Sources: For each discussion topic in the course, you will conduct Internet research to learn more about each environmental issue. You must properly reference each article or other source whose ideas, opinions, or data you use in your post. You must follow proper APA guidelines for each references. See the APA Tool Kit in the Research Section of your Syllabus.

apa qual writing

/in /by

 

To prepare for this Discussion, review the week’s Learning Resources, and consider the unique ethical challenges for different target populations when conducting doctoral research. Consider your own Doctoral Problem Statement that you drafted at the end of the previous course (DDBA 8161) and the target populations that would be reviewed by an international review board (IRB). For example, a research study that focuses on government employees must take into consideration issues such as security clearances, access to data, and restrictions on publication. Be sure to review the organizational access checklist outlined in Box 6.10 on page 239 in Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2015).

Post an analysis of ethical considerations for target populations within the doctoral research process. Your analysis should include the following:

  • Briefly describe a target population within your Doctoral Study, including any relevant factors that could be scrutinized by an IRB committee.
  • Identify specific ethical considerations for the target population within your Doctoral Study, including access, data, or publication restrictions, for example.
  • Explain how this population and its ethical considerations impact both the process and the overall value of your doctoral research study.

Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional scholarly source.

Refer to the Week 1 Discussion 2 Rubric for specific grading elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use this rubric to assess your work.

https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323499153/cfi/6/2!/4/[email protected]:0

Mobile Forensics

/in /by

Reading article: 

Nnoli, H. Lindskog, D, Zavarsky, P., Aghili, S., & Ruhl, R. (2012). The Governance of Corporate Forensics Using COBIT, NIST and Increased Automated Forensic Approaches, 2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Conference on Social Computing, Amsterdam, 734-741.

After reading the required articles this week, please write a research paper that answers the following questions: 

  • What are mobile forensics and do you believe that they are different from computer forensics?
  • What is the percentage of attacks on networks that come from mobile devices?
  • What are challenges to mobile forensics?
  • What are some mobile forensic tools?
  • Should the analysis be different on iOS vs Android?

Your paper should meet the following requirements:

  • Be approximately four to six pages in length, not including the required cover page and reference page.
  • Follow APA7 guidelines. Your paper should include an introduction, a body with fully developed content, and a conclusion.
  • Support your answers with the readings from the course and at least two scholarly journal articles to support your positions, claims, and observations, in addition to your textbook. The UC Library is a great place to find resources.
  • Be clearly and well-written, concise, and logical, using excellent grammar and style techniques. You are being graded in part on the quality of your writing.

case study 2 laboratory

/in /by

 

Students must review the case study and answer all questions with a scholarly response using APA and include 2 scholarly references. Answer both case studies on the same document and upload 1 document to Moodle.

Case Study 1 & 2 topics change every semester.  Topic TBD

The answers must be in your own words with reference to the journal or book where you found the evidence to your answer. Do not copy-paste or use past students’ work as all files submitted in this course are registered and saved in turn it in the program.

Answers must be scholarly and be 3-4 sentences in length with rationale and explanation. No Straight forward / Simple answer will be accepted.  

Turn it in Score must be less than 25 % or will not be accepted for credit, must be your own work and in your own words. You can resubmit, Final submission will be accepted if less than 25 %. Copy paste from websites or textbooks will not be accepted or tolerated. Please see College Handbook with reference to Academic Misconduct Statement.

All answers to case studies must have reference cited in the text for each answer and a minimum of 2 Scholarly References (Journals, books) (No websites)  per case Study

Late Assignment Policy

Assignments turned in late will have 1 point taken off for everyday assignment is late, after 7 days assignment will get a grade of 0 (zero). No exceptions 

Argumentation and Advocacy-2

/in /by

I need each question answered in 150 words each. Also, I want each reference listed with each question  

MODULE 1

DQ1

Aristotle described argumentation as the following: “For to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves, and to attack others.” Aristotle’s description of argumentation represents his view of how argumentation is a part of who we are as human beings. Do you agree or disagree with Aristotle’s viewpoint? Explain why. How has his viewpoint played a significant role in the historical development of argumentation?

DQ2

Find a blog that presents and defends an argument within one of its posts. Write a paragraph evaluating the arguments as either inductive or deductive. Provide the blog link in your paragraph response. Why do you think identifying these different elements in an argument is important?

STUDY MATERIALS

Read Chapters 1 and 2 in Introduction to Logic.

Read “Ways of Knowing and Willingness to Argue” by Schommer-Aikins & Easter, from Journal of Psychology (2009). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=36525661&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Read “Developing Face-to-Face Argumentation Skills: Does Arguing on the Computer Help?” by Iordanou, from Journal of Cognition & Development (2013). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=87512075&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 Read “The Language of Argumentation” by Taylor, from Science Teacher (2013). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=88164181&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 Read “Principles in Persuasion: Beyond Characteristics of the Speaker” by Bradshaw, from Jury Expert (2012). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=79746133&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 View “For Argument’s Sake” by Cohen, from TED Talks (2013). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=96349&xtid=56620

Read “Persuasion” from Mosdell, from Key Concepts in Public Relations (2009). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageukpr/persuasion/0?institutionId=5865

Read “Chapter 1: Nature of Argumentation” by Besnard & Hunter (2008). URL:https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/lib/gcu/reader.action?ppg=16&docID=3338790&tm=1528414595722

 View “Public Speaking—Informative and Persuasive Speeches” from Films on Demand (2012). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=96349&xtid=117906

MODULE 2

DQ1

When watching or reading the news, what fallacies do you see people make most often in their arguments?

DQ2

Identify a fallacy you used in a recent discussion with another person. Why did you use that fallacy and how can you address the concern without the use of the fallacy?

STUDY MATERIALS

Read Chapter 4 in Introduction to Logic.

View the Fallacies media piece to increase your knowledge of fallacies. URL:http://lc.gcumedia.com/phi105/fallacies-website/fallacies-website-v1.1.html

Read “Fallacies” by Cohen, from The Essentials of Philosophy and Ethics (2006). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hodderepe/fallacies/0?institutionId=5865

Read “Part IV – Of Fallacies” by True, from Elements of Logic (1860). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2009-16649-004&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 Read “Fallacy” by Iannone, from Dictionary of World Philosophy (2001). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/routwp/fallacy/0?institutionId=5865

 Read “Worldview,” by Margas & Margas from Encyclopedia of Identity (2010). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/topic/world_views?institutionId=5865

Read “Fallacies of Logic: Argumentation Cons” by Shaprio, from ETC: A Review of General Semantics (2007). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23943093&site=ehost-live&scope=site

MODULE 3

DQ1

Find an example in society of a dispute that is (1) based on the ambiguity of language and (2) is not a genuine dispute. Point out the differences and propose how to resolve the dispute.

DQ2

Take a term that is related to a social issue you are personally interested in and clearly define it. For example, defining a right vs a privilege in the debates on health care. Comment on another student’s post by seeing if you can find an exception that is excluded from the definition given. 

STUDY MATERIALS

Read Chapter 3 in Introduction to Logic.

Read “The Rules of the Syllogism” by Jevons, from Elementary Lessons in Logic (1912). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2009-01796-015&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 View “Logic: The Structure of Reason” from our Films on Demand collection. URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=96349&xtid=32714

MODULE 4

DQ1

Examine an argument made in public and translate its conclusion to show one of the four standard-form categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O). Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Why or why not? Second, if its premises are true, what else can you infer about the conclusion? Analyze.

[Note: Remember that standard-form categorical propositions use affirmative or negative “to be” verbs (e.g., is, are, am, was, were, be, been, being) in its copula to set up a connection between two classes — the subject (S) and the predicate (P).]

DQ2

As you are learning about propositions and contradictions, write out a view that you hold on a social issue in propositional form (A, E, I, or O). What is the logical contradiction to your view? Identify a specific group that advocates the contradiction of your viewpoint.

STUDY MATERIALS

Read Chapter 5 in Introduction to Logic.

MODULE 5

DQ1

Using an argument from an organization you found, create the logical contradiction for the organization’s position. Be sure to properly label the quality and quantity of the propositions.

DQ2

How would you communicate with someone who holds a different view than yourself in a way that is logically sound but does not deny the human dignity of the other person? 

STUDY MATERIALS

Review Chapter 5 in Introduction to Logic

Read “Effective Argumentation in a Culture of Discord,” by Cioffi, from Accounting Education News (2005).  URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=18996145&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 Read “The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions” by Macagno & Walton, from Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (2008). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/docview/881372107?accountid=7374

Read “This Is Like That: Metaphors in Public Discourse Shape Attitudes” by Landau & Keefer, from Social & Personality Psychology Compass (2014). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=97332918&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Read “Reflection and Reasoning in Moral Judgement,” by Paxton et al., from Cognitive Science (2012 URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=70249521&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 Read “The Structure of a Manipulation Argument” by Tognazzini, from Ethics (2014).  URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=92959039&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 Read “Arguing to Learn and Learning to Argue: Design Justifications and Guidelines” by Jonassen & Kim, from Educational Technology Research & Development (2010). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=51313070&site=ehost-live&scope=site

MODULE 6

DQ1

Why is it important to understand how a syllogism functions when it comes to doing advocacy work? 

DQ2

Provide an argument in affirmation of the topic: It is better to protect privacy over security. Your response should be at least 250 words long and include at least one source found using resources available from the school’s library or online.

STUDY MATERIALS

Read Chapter 6 in Introduction to Logic.

Read “Deduction as Verbal Reasoning” by Polk & Newell, from Psychological Review (1995). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9508100500&site=ehost-live&scope=site

 Read “Deduction/Induction” by Carr, from Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language (2009). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/edinburghilpl/deduction_induction/0?institutionId=5865

Read “Induction” by Brewer and Brewer, from The A-Z of Social Research (2003). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageuksr/induction/0?institutionId=5865

Read “Deduction” by Brewer & Brewer, from The A-Z of Social Research (2003). URL:https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/lib/gcu/reader.action?ppg=111&docID=3308243&tm=1528418776279

Read “Chapter 6, Influencing Through Induction” from pages 91-106 of Influencing Through Argument, by Huber, Snider, & Lawrence (2005). URL:https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/lib/gcu/reader.action?ppg=111&docID=3308243&tm=1528418776279

Read “Chapter 7, Influencing Through Deduction” from pages 109-132 of Influencing Through Argument, by Huber, Snider, & Lawrence (2005). URL:https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/lib/gcu/reader.action?ppg=129&docID=3308243&tm=1528419322293

Read “Deduction as Verbal Reasoning” by Polk & Newell, from Psychological Review (1995). URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9508100500&site=ehost-live&scope=site

MODULE 7

DQ1

Research an argument in the realm of apologetics and evaluate the syllogism given (e.g., the transcended argument for the existence of God). Translate the argument into a standard-form categorical syllogism with a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion that contains a major term (predicate) and a minor term (subject). Make certain the major term, minor term, and middle term are connected by an affirmative or negative copula that uses “to be” verbs (e.g., is, are, am, was, were, be, been, being) in both premises and the conclusion.

DQ2

Find an argument against a position you hold. This can be in the realm of politics, religion, art, etc. Identify the form of the argument and state whether it is valid or invalid. Then, provide a response. 

STUDY MATERIALS

 Read Chapter 7 in Introduction to Logic.

MODULE 8

DQ1

When you are asked to construct an ethical argument, what do you consider that to mean? Explain and discuss with other whether there are objective or subjective standards for ethical arguments. 

DQ2

Find an outside source that argues for some specific ethical standards in its argumentation. Translate it into a syllogism

STUDY MATERIALS

 Review Chapter 7 in the textbook. 

 Read “Martin Buber,” from the Jewish Virtual Library. URL:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Buber.html

View “Evidence in Argument: Critical Thinking” from our Films on Demand database. URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=96349&xtid=49816

Signature Assignment: Design a Plan for a Professional Development Workshop

/in /by

This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®.

Instructions

Imagine that you have been asked to present on educating for a diversity of learners during a full-day professional development workshop at your local school or school district. Your Signature Assignment is to plan this workshop using the template provided in this week’s resources.

Choose four specific topics from this course that would be relevant and helpful to teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and other staff; you will define the exact audience. Each of the four topics you choose will become a 45-minute session, which you will outline using the template.  Note that the template includes a short break between the two-morning sessions, lunch after Session 2, and a short break between the two-afternoon sessions. 

While creating your full-day professional development activities, be sure to include current and immediately useful resources on each of the diversity issues you explore. Given that this is an academic assignment, you do need to include in-text citations and a reference list.

Length: 7-9 pages, using the provided template, excluding References page

References: Include a minimum of 8 credible resources with at least two resources for each session.

Your plan should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.