More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance Of Creative And Critical Thinking
Importance of critical thinking in daily life
Importance of critical thinking in daily life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I feel that the thesis of the article “An Intellectual Free Lunch” by Michael Kinsley is that people often share strong, uneducated opinions on topics that they do not have adequate information on, and this tends to cause issues. I strongly agree with the argument that the author is making in this article. Many people start up disagreements that are unnecessary due to not being properly informed enough to for a solid opinion. Like Kinsley writes in his article, “All over the country… citizens are expressing out-rage about how much we spend on foreign aid, without having the faintest idea what the amount is” (251). People feel that if they “talk big” then that automatically means that they know what they are talking about, and that simply is not true at all. I deeply respect that everyone has their own unique opinions, but these opinions are easier to understand when they can be backed up with factual information. When someone does not …show more content…
I think Kinsley makes a valid point in his article by saying, “As long as you’re mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore, no one will inquire very closely into what, exactly ‘it’ is and whether they ought to feel that way” (252). This can lead to multiple people being misinformed and also makes it more difficult for the truth to be exposed and accepted. I firmly agree with many points that Kinsley brings up in this article. Many times, people with speak strongly on topics in which they are not properly informed. Other people tend to follow these misinformed ideas and then the actually facts are harder to be discovered. This seems to be a huge issue in today’s society. There are so many controversial topics dealing with politics, science, religion and more. It is extremely important that we are properly educated on these topics so we can have a solid base to build our opinions
What apparent problem or difficulty or surprising fact is the discussion meant to solve or allay?
Kimmel uses quite a few fallacies in his argument, such as begging the question, guilt by association, and slippery slope. For example Kimmel uses guilt by association throughout this article in the same manner that he is using logic to prove his entire argument. Kimmel constantly compares the characteristics of individuals and uses these similarities to say that because they have all of these things in common, they must have the same reasoning for taking the same actions, which is in a way pairing people together just based on the fact that they are associated with one another in terms of background, which is an example of the fallacy “guilt by association”(Kimmel). The use of these fallacies would essentially damage the ability of the article to create a convincing argument, if the purpose were to strictly make the audience agree with his opinion. Kimmel’s credibility also “takes a hit” as he fails to properly state the origin of any of his proof in his article which once again would make the audience skeptical of his ethical standings and once again ultimately disprove his argument if it were for the sole purpose of
Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial, titled “The Triumph of the Yell”, Tannen claims that journalists, politicians and academics treat public discourse as an argument. Furthermore, she attempts to persuade her readers that this posturing of argument as a conflict leads to a battle, not a debate, and that we would be able to communicate the truth if this culture were not interfering. This paper will discuss the rhetorical strategies that Tannen utilizes, outline the support given in her editorial, and why her argument is less convincing than it should be.
A more informed people create a better society.
In source C, William Blanche explains how people are being too dependent on others words instead of finding out themselves. He states “Critical thinking has become a lost art form filled with media’s attempt to persuade us to sidetrack our ability to come to a conclusion, based on the facts”. What Blanche is trying to explain is that people are looking for media to give them answers and explain news and situations instead of trying to find out themselves. Having help from media isn’t a bad thing, but completely depending on media is a bad thing. Using your brain to decipher information has become quite rare in this day and age and this can be related back to students in the classroom. Instead of trying to learn and go out and struggling to find information, students easily search on Google and click on the first link. They inhale all that information without thinking for a second if they should find out more information. Why? Because it is easy for them. By doing this, a student isn’t learning, but rather, they are simply regurgitating ...
There is always going to be the opposing side to the writers ideas and presenting this opposition could either hurt or harm the article. This time, Balko’s team won the race. Balko’s presence of the opposition helped his argument more so than harmed it. The opposition is stated when he says, “President Bush marked $200 million in his budget for anti-obesity measures. State legislatures and school boards across the country have begun banning snacks and soda from campuses and vending machine.” (396) While reading that statistic I thought, “How Awful!”. By stating the opposition it makes the reader wonder, “Who should really take the blame?” This helps enforce the writers argument it doesn 't harm it all. It actually attracts the reader to the position of Balko’s argument due to strong and effective statistics. In contrast, Zinczenko’s article does the complete opposite when he says, “Kids taking on McDonald’s this week, suing the company for making them fat. Isn 't that like middle-aged men suing Porshe for making them get speeding tickets? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?” (391) The writers opposition actually sounds more effective than his initial argument and that should never happen. The writer would 've been better off not stating the existence of the opposition at all. The opposition didn 't help enforce the side of the writer it only made it look less appealing. It leads the reader to
After applying the critical thinking framework advocated by Browne and Keeley (2010) several shortcomings in reasoning become obvious. As illustrated throughout the paper the memo is emotionally charged, employs poor evidence, and contains reasoning fallacies. Based on the findings the conclusion can neither be accepted nor rejected. It would advisable to obtain further information before arriving at a decision on the matter.
Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Baltimore County Public Library. Web. 11 Nov 2009
She was able to evoke emotions by her choice of negatively charged words towards the other author, Stephen Budiansky, and his work, Math Lessons for Locavores. By the end of the article, the reader developed strong negative views concerning the other article solely on Trueman’s diction and her tone. By writing, “Throw in a bunch of dubious and/or irrelevant statistics that appear to be truly locally sourced-i.e., pulled out of your own behind,” and “What’s so maddening about sloppy op-eds like this is that they give fodder to folks who hate the very notion that their food choices have any consequences beyond their own waistlines and bank balances”, Trueman expresses her dislike of Budiansky’s thoughst on the topic. She describes his article in such a dismissive way that her audiences adopts the same views as her. As a whole, her way of writing creates an overall negative tone towards the article being criticized. While doing this, she also points out flaws in his argument and exposes his faults in reasoning. As a result, his argument becomes invalid in the eyes of the readers and they are left with a clear winning perspective on the issue of the Local Food Movement. Kerry Truman's use of pathos in her critical analysis of Budiansky’s Math Lessons for Locavores was successful in the aspect that she evokes emotions in her
...g the truth eventually emerge, sometimes there is not even a chance for it to become visible. The marketplace of ideas favors the powerful and the only way to have the truth emerge is to have someone, or something, with the same amount of power to let the truth out into the marketplace of ideas.
Mills believes that the people who “silence” people the most would be the Catholic Church. He thinks they are the most prejudice against people who voice against there believes. He explains, “…that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith” (49). Essentially, some of our most important teachings have come from people speaking against the Christian Church. In summary, Mills believes that in order for people and society to progress, we must give them the ability to think for themselves. Mills is persuasive in his first argument because a society that is silenced will never...
Much of what we know today of current events comes from online sources on social media or as eye-catching links on the side of a website. These articles, though there could potentially be truth to them, almost always rely on captivating simple statements and stories that connect with the reader on an emotional level, rather than a logical one. This affects students’ education for the simple reason of our nearly inseparable connection with our cell phones and social media. This has become our go-to source for anything we want to know, and since fake news is so readily available to us, it is what we easily believe is true. The availability of fake news makes it’s presence known in the classroom, where students are distracted from the lesson by groundbreaking stories being shared across every media platform in existence, which a vast majority have access to. Even in politics, where our reliance for leadership lies, is tainted with post-truth information. Facts given to us by the presidential office, cleverly titled “alternative facts” by our highest elected official, show the true effect of how post truth can ruin credibility and trust. It even affects the education given by teachers, those who are paid to educate the next generation of children. History teachers can be swayed one way or another by news channels, constantly pushing out breaking news about
Common American experience seems to suggest that a solution to every dilemma can be found through enough lobbying, legislating, media-blitzing or politicking. We often believe that the person arguing most eloquently, reasonably or forcefully will win every dispute, yet there are times when this optimism fails. Despite great efforts to show the strength of a position, there are arguments that we cannot untangle simply by proving our right and another's wrong. Some moral questions permit such different outlooks that holders of completely opposing views can both be morally sound. Rather than trying to reason away one side we can only hope to understand each position well enough to acknowledge its critical elements and keep bitter dissension to a minimum.
Reading through the essay I felt that Bob Smietana the author was speaking as a reporter. Rather than offering his own opinion he throughout the essay presented opinions from both sides of the arguement.