Expert answer:Write an argumentative paper that demonstrates why
Answer & Explanation:Using the attached chapter 3: Critical Thinking E-bookWrite an argumentative paper of no more than 750
words that demonstrates why globalization is good or not good for a
business. The paper should define the term good, and should identify the premises and conclusions. Identify the premise and conclusion by placing a number in bold at the beginning of the sentence with the word premise or conclusion. For example: (1, Premise), (2, Premise), (1, Conclusion), (2, Conclusion), and so on.
Sentences labeled as “1, premise” are premises for the sentence labeled as “1, conclusion.”All premises should be labeled for each conclusion in the article.
If a sentence is a conclusion and a premise for another conclusion,
place two labels.At the end of the paper, identify one example of how you used
deductive reasoning and one example of how you used inductive reasoning.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines. critical_thinking__ch._3.pdf
critical_thinking__ch._3.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
2 of 56
Clear Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Clear
Writing
Students will learn to …
1. Determine acceptable and unacceptable degrees of vagueness in language
2. Understand and identify types of ambiguity
3. Identify the problems generality causes in language
4. Use definitions to increase precision and clarity and to influence attitudes
5. Understand the types of definitions
6. Acquire skills for writing an effective argumentative essay
rom August 1987 until January 2007, Alan Greenspan was chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board (“the Fed”). Because any remark he made about U.S. monetary policy could cause
markets all over the world to fluctuate wildly, he developed a complicated way of speaking that
came to be known as “Fedspeak.”
Here’s an example:
It is a tricky problem to find the particular calibration in timing that would be appropriate to
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
3 of 56
stem the acceleration in risk premiums created by falling incomes without prematurely
aborting the decline in the inflation-generated risk premiums.*
Greenspan has admitted that such remarks were not really intended to be understood.
Asked to give an example by commenting on the weather, Greenspan replied,
I would generally expect that today in Washington, D.C., the probability of changes in the
weather is highly uncertain. But we are monitoring the data in such a manner that we will be
able to update people on changes that are important.*
Page 70
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
This tells us nothing about the weather, of course, and was not intended to. Many times, though, we run
across similarly complicated examples of speech or writing that do seem to be intended to inform us.
For example, Allan Bloom, the famous American educator who authored The Closing of the
American Mind, which was read (or at least purchased) by millions, wrote in that book:
If openness means to “go with the flow,” it is necessarily an accommodation to the present.
That present is so closed to doubt about so many things impeding the progress of its principles
that unqualified openness to it would mean forgetting the despised alternative to it, knowledge
of which makes us aware of what is doubtful in it.
Is this true? Well—that’s really hard to say. The problem is, you don’t know exactly what Professor
Bloom is asserting in this passage.
Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, “Thank God, I’m still alive.” But, of course, those who
died—their lives will never be the same again.
—U.S. SENATOR BARBARA BOXER (D), California
Any number of problems may make a statement unclear. Not infrequently, people just don’t say
what they mean. Consider this statement made by President George W. Bush:
You know, when you give a man more money in his pocket—in this case, a woman more
money in her pocket to expand a business, it—they build new buildings. And when somebody
builds a new building somebody has got to come and build the building. And when the
building expanded it prevented additional opportunities for people to work. (Lancaster, PA,
October 3, 2007)**
If I said anything which implies that I think that we didn’t do what we should have done given the choices we faced
at the time, I shouldn’t have said that.
—BILL CLINTON (reported by Larry Engelmann)
We think he meant “presented” rather than “prevented,” but even then, the point can surely be made
more clearly. Here’s an example from former Canadian prime minister Jean Chrétien, when asked in
Parliament about old versus new money in the health care program:
They say that the money we had promised three years ago to be new money this year is not
new money. We have not paid it yet and it is old money versus new money. For me new
money is new money if paying in $5 or $10, it’s the same money.†
We have no clue what he had in mind.
One of your authors noticed this as a tease on the front page of a newspaper: “49ers are upset.” This
probably means that somebody who was not supposed to beat the San Francisco football team did
manage to beat them. On the other hand, it could mean that the team is dismayed about something.
Page 71
4 of 56
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
5 of 56
In the Media
Say What?? …
You don’t have to be a national political figure to put your foot in your mouth. Ordinary folks
can do it, too!
The president’s energy tax won’t even be noticed. Besides, it will discourage
consumption.
[Hey, if it won’t be noticed, it won’t discourage consumption.]
Females score lower on the SAT than males, which right there proves the tests don’t
show anything. They also demonstrate that teachers do a better job of teaching male
students, which is just what you’d expect given the sexual bias that exists in the
classroom.
[If the SATs don’t show anything, then they don’t show that teachers do a better job teaching males.]
We have to liberate discussion on this campus and not be so restrained by the First
Amendment.
[Right. And we can make people free by sticking them in jail.]
Once your body gets cold, the rest of you will get cold, too.
[On the other hand, if you can keep your body warm, the rest of you will stay warm, too.]
It’s hard to support the president’s invasion of Haiti when the American public is so
strongly against it. And besides, he’s just doing it to raise his standings in the polls.
[Hmmm. How’s it going to raise his standings if the public is so strongly against it?]
Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your knowledge?
[Asked of our colleague Becky White by an airport security employee.]
Although obscurity can issue from various causes, four sources of confusion stand out as
paramount: excessive vagueness, ambiguity, excessive generality, and undefined terms. In this chapter,
we shall consider vagueness, ambiguity, and generality in some detail and then talk about definitions.
Also, from time to time situations arise in which we need to think critically about what we write,
especially when we are trying to produce an argumentative essay. In this type of writing enterprise, one
takes a position on an issue and supports it with argument. A good argumentative essay usually consists
of four parts: a statement of the issue, a statement of one’s position on that issue, arguments that support
one’s position, and rebuttals of arguments that support contrary positions. Obviously, an argumentative
essay is weakened by statements that are obscure, and what we say in this chapter has direct application
to writing clear argumentative essays. We shall return to this subject after we discuss vagueness,
ambiguity, generality, and definitions.
Wabash College student newspaper headline: Carter Swears in Church
As it turned out, a Judge Carter gave the oath of office to a deputy attorney general whose last name is Church.
Was this an accident, or was a headline writer at Wabash College having a bit of fun?
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
6 of 56
VAGUENESS
Perhaps the most common form of unclear thinking or writing is excessive vagueness. Pursued to its
depths, the concept of vagueness can be a knotty one, and it has been the focus of much philosophical
attention in the past few decades.* Fortunately, at a practical level, the idea is not difficult to grasp. A
word or phrase is vague if the group of things to which it applies has borderline cases. Consider the
word “bald.” It’s clear that Paris Hilton is not bald. It’s equally clear that Patrick Stewart is bald. But
there are lots of people in between (including both your authors). Many of those between the two
extremes are borderline cases: It is not at all clear whether the word “bald” should apply to them—it’s
the sort of thing about which reasonable people could disagree. For this reason, it is correct to say that
baldness is a vague concept.
Page 72
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
7 of 56
Real Life
Vagueness at the Border
As the text explains, vagueness results when the scope of a concept is not clear—that is, when
there are borderline cases. “Bald” is a typical example. Here, Ms. Hilton is clearly not bald, and
Mr. Stewart clearly is bald. But whether Bruce Willis is bald or not is a good question. He has
hair—although it seems to be on the wane—but these days, he keeps his head shaved and thus
appears bald. How much hair would he have to lose to be bald whether or not he shaved his
head? The fact that there is no good answer demonstrates that “baldness” is a vague concept.
Man is ready to die for an idea, provided that idea is not quite clear to him.
—PAUL ELDRIDGE
Vagueness plays a very important role in much that we do. In the law, for example, how we deal
with vagueness is crucial. Whether the word “torture” applies to various types of interrogation
techniques, especially including “waterboarding,” for example, has been a serious issue for several
years. Many former officials have claimed that these techniques did not count as torture, but many
others have disagreed. (Some, who subjected themseves to the procedure, have disagreed rather
violently.) Possibly more relevant to us and to you personally, whether a bit of driving is “reckless” or
not may determine whether you pay a small fine or a large one—or even go to jail. Consider, too, the
speed limits we are asked to observe on the highways. Ideally, the offense in question would be
something like “driving too fast for the circumstances” rather than driving faster than a particular speed.
This is because what is safe at 80 miles per hour in one set of circumstances (midday, no traffic, clear
weather, and dry roads) might be dangerously unsafe at 40 miles per hour in another (dark, heavy traffic,
rain or fog, slick roads). But we have opted for set speed limits because “driving too fast” is a vague
term, and we do not want to put our fate in the hands of patrol officers and judges who are in a position
to make arbitrary decisions about whether it applies in our case. So, because we are afraid of the
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
consequences of the vague concept, we sometimes get away with driving dangerously fast under bad
circumstances, and we are sometimes ticketed for driving over the posted limit when it is quite safe to
do so.
Page 73
8 of 56
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize until you have tried to make it precise.
—BERTRAND RUSSELL
Sometimes vagueness is just annoying. Suppose that it’s late and you’re looking for someone’s
house and you’re given the following directions: “Go on down this street a ways ’til you get to the first
major intersection, make a sharp right, then, when the street starts to curve to the left, you’ll be there.”
The vagueness in these directions is as likely to get your blood pressure up as it is to help you find your
destination. (How do you decide that a particular intersection is “major,” for example?)
Vagueness is often intentional, used as a means to avoid giving a clear, precise answer. Politicians
often resort to vague statements if they don’t want their audience to know exactly where they stand. A
vague answer to the question “Do you love me?” may mean there’s trouble ahead in the relationship.
Ask a man which way he is going to vote, and he will probably tell you. Ask him, however, why, and vagueness is
all.
—BARNARD LEVIN
Vagueness occurs to varying degrees, and it is difficult to the point of impossibility to get rid of it
entirely. Fortunately, there is no need to get rid of it entirely. We live very comfortably with a certain
amount of vagueness in most of what we say. “Butte City is a very small town” presents us with no
problems under ordinary circumstances, despite the vagueness of “very small town.” “Darren has no
school loans because his parents are rich” doesn’t tell us how much money the parents have, but it tells
us enough to be useful. “Rich” and “small,” like “bald,” are vague concepts; there is no accepted clear
line between the things to which they apply and those to which they don’t. Nonetheless, they are
valuable notions; we get a lot of good use out of them.
Problems arise with vagueness when there is too much of it, as in our direction-giving example
above. Similarly, if a politician claims he will “raise taxes on the wealthy,” what should we take that to
mean? Unlike with the earlier example of Darren’s rich parents, in this case it would be worthwhile to
spend some effort trying to pin down just what our speaker means by “wealthy,” since where the borders
fall here really do make a difference.
So, when is a level of vagueness acceptable and when is it not? It’s difficult to give a general rule,
aside from urging due care and common sense, but we might say this: When a claim is not too vague to
convey appropriately useful information, its level of vagueness is acceptable. For example, if the
directions we’re given are not too vague to help us find our destination, they pass the test. If the
politician specifies enough about his tax plan to assure us that we understand how it would apply, then
we should not complain of vagueness. But when a speaker or writer does indulge in excessive
vagueness, thereby making it difficult or impossible for us to fairly assess his or her claim, it is our job
to hold that person accountable.
Page 74
9 of 56
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
10 of 56
Asked why the desertion rate in the army had risen so much, director of plans and resources for Army personnel
Roy Wallace replied, “We’re asking a lot of soldiers these days.”
You might at first want to know what they’re asking the soldiers, until you see the ambiguity in Wallace’s remark.
AMBIGUITY
A word, phrase, or sentence is said to be ambiguous when it has more than one meaning. Does “Paul
cashed a check” mean that Paul gave somebody cash, or that somebody gave cash to him? It could mean
either. “Jessica is renting her house” could mean that she’s renting it to someone or from someone.
Jennifer gets up from her desk on Friday afternoon and says, “My work here is finished.” She might
mean that she has finished the account she was working on, or that her whole week’s work is done and
she’s leaving for the weekend, or that she’s fed up with her job and is leaving the company. If you look
online, you can find several collections of amusing headlines that are funny because of their ambiguity:
“Kids make nutritious snacks,” for example, or “Miners refuse to work after death.”
Most of the time the interpretation that a speaker or writer intends for a claim is obvious, as in the
case of these headlines. But ambiguity can have consequences beyond making us smile. Take a look at
the box “A Subtle Ambiguity.” The question Russert asks is ambiguous, although you might not notice it
at first. It could be a question about the cause—that is, the explanation—for one’s not supporting gay
marriage, or it might be about his reasons—that is, his argument—for not supporting it. Presidential
candidate Edwards took advantage of the ambiguity to duck the question Russert really wanted him to
answer, which was the second version. The way Edwards was brought up is something he is not
responsible for and which he does not have to defend. On the other hand if he were asked to give
arguments for his side of the issue, he could then be asked to defend those arguments.
In the Media
A Subtle Ambiguity
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
11 of 56
A while back, when John Edwards was still a viable presidential candidate, he was asked the
following question on Meet the Press:
TIM RUSSERT: Why
JOHN EDWARDS:
don’t you support gay marriage?
Well, I guess it was the way I was brought up.
Do you see the ambiguity here, and how it works to Edwards’s advantage? You’ll find an
explanation in the text.
Page 75
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
Brad and Angelina are not pleased with this book. Of course, they aren’t displeased, either, since it’s
almost certain they’ve never heard of it. Note the ambiguity in the original statement.
In discussions of gay rights, we’ve seen an ambiguity in the term “rights” that often stymies
rational debate. The issue is whether laws should be passed to prevent discrimination against gays in
housing, in the workplace, and so forth. One side claims that such laws would themselves be
12 of 56
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
13 of 56
discriminatory because they would specifically grant to gay people rights that are not specifically
guaranteed to others—they would be “special” rights. The other side claims that the laws are only to
guarantee for gays the right to be treated the same as others under the law. When the two sides fail to
sort out just what they mean by their key terms, the result is at best a great waste of breath and at worst
angry misunderstanding.
Semantic Ambiguity
A claim can be ambiguous in any of several ways. The most obvious way is probably by containing an
ambiguous word or phrase, which produces a case of semantic ambiguity. See if you can explain the
ambiguity in each of the following claims:
1. Wingo, the running back, always lines up on the right side.
2. Jessica is cold.
3. Aunt Delia never used glasses.
Page 76
2/9/2016 12:17 PM
14 of 56
The story goes that a burglar and his 16-year-old accomplice tripped a silent alarm while breaking into a building.
The accomplice was carrying a pistol, and when police arrived and tried to talk him out of the weapon, the older
burglar said, “Give it to him!” whereupon the youngster shot the policeman.
—Courtesy of COLLEN JOHNSON, currently of the California State Prison, Tehachapi
Ambiguity can be dangerous!
In the first case, it may be that it’s the right and not the left side where Wingo lines up, or it may be that
he always lines up on the correct side. The second example may be saying something about Jessica’s
temperature or something about her personality. In the third case, it may be that Aunt Delia always had
good eyes, but it also might mean that she drank her beer directly from the bottle (which was true of one
of your authors’ Aunt Delia). Semantically ambiguous claims can be made unambiguous
(“disambiguated”) by substituting a word or phrase that is not ambiguous for the one making the trouble.
“Correct” for “right,” for example, in #1; “eyeglasses” for “glasses” in #3.
Grouping Ambiguity
There is a special kind of semantic ambiguity, called grouping ambiguity, that results when it is not
clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group collectively or to members of the group
individually. Consider:
Secretaries make more money than physicians do.
The example is true if the speaker refers to secretaries and physicians collectively, since there are many
more secretaries than there are physicians. But it is obviously false if the two words refer to individual
secretaries and physicians.
“Lawn mowers create more air pollution than dirt bikes do” is something a dirt biker might say in
defense of his hobby. And, because it is ambiguous, there is an interpretation under which his claim is
probably true as well as one under which it is probably false. Taken collectively, lawn mowers doubtless
create more pollution because there are so many more of them. Individually, we’d bet it’s the dirt bike
that does more damage.
“I asked my mother if I were a gifted child. She said they certainly would not have paid for me.”
—-ANONYMOUS
Like other types of ambiguity, grouping ambiguity can be used intentionally to interfere with clear
thinking. A few years ago, federal taxes were increased, and opponents of the change referred to it as
“the biggest tax increase in history.” If true, that makes the increase sound pretty radical, doesn’t it? And
it was true, if you looked at the total tax revenue that was brought in by the increase. But this result was
largely due to the numbers of people and the cir …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades