The structure of Gould’s argument is significant because he introduces the issue then supplies examples that he evaluates in great detail. After evaluating the three examples, he goes into disproving two of the examples and glorifying the other. By not simply going straight into arguing his point, Gould gives the audience a feeling of uncertainty. This uncertainty leads to asking questions and deep thinking as to where he was going with his argument, which is the main point of his argument to begin with. If he had given the audience his evaluation of the three examples at the beginning of the article it would have been less impactful due to the fact that the audience would have already known the outcomes of the examples and would have been
I believe this essay created an inductive argument, since the Daly provided evidence that helped support the conclusion by making it probab...
...nstein’s main points because they were back up by science and I have witnessed some of them, as I mentioned previously. The only one I disagreed with was the last two recommendations for voting for a presidential candidate.
I am a Christian and I don’t disagree with the author. But, whenever you are making your case for your side. One should always present the opposing argument. This article fails to do this. It actually makes a lot of statement like this:
In the author 's next argument he uses a long illustration in support of a complex argument:
When it comes to choosing an argument for the existence of god I believe that Paley’s argument of creation and design is the best for proving that god does exist. In his argument Paley is suggesting that if we were to look at the world around us, we could easily come to the conclusion that it was not created by pure chance but, by a creator (a designer). Paley uses a watch and a rock in order to explain his argument. He mentions how if there was a watch on the floor and we have never seen it before, we would easily come to the conclusion that the watch could not have been made by pure chance but, some kind of intelligent design was put into it. He argues that when we look at the rock we do not so easily see the design, but it does not mean
In conclusion, had Kearns left his argument to a simplistic means, I think that this article would have been fascinating to read.
The author creates an argument by using facts to support his claim. Using facts allows the reader to better trust his claim. “38 percent of employers complained that local schools inadequately taught reading comprehension.” This shows that people are starting to blame schools for their decline in reading. This supports Gioia’s claim because it gives a reason why these young people have stopped reading.
I found the problem with the argument of the article was there was no set argument that was clearly stated. If there was an argument in the article it was not clearly stated and I personally did not catch onto it. Altogether this was a well written article without a clear argument.
The argument from design was an argument thought up by William Paley to prove that God exists. The argument states that if one were to see a rock, they would not think that someone had dropped that rock, whereas if one were to see a watch they would think that it belonged to someone who had dropped it. It then states that the watch is simply to sophisticated and complex that it must have had a manufacturer that made it that way. The argument then goes on to say that many things in nature are also complex and must have been designed by someone to serve a specific purpose. The one who designed these things in nature is God.
His argument is weak overall, but that is because it is meant to be weak because he has a whole other meaning behind what he is saying. The strength in his arguments was that he got the reader’s attention like he wanted then at the end told them how he really felt about the whole issue. What he was really good at was getting his readers attention because if he didn’t grab their attention then the whole point of the essay would be pointless. He could have been less descriptive in the parts where he talked about cooking children but other than that he did a pretty swell job at what he did.
This explains why each of his similar arguments can remain because they attacked the intuition of choice (argument one), addressing the multiple possibilities (argument two), and the problem solving problem (argument three). He could argue each of these arguments attacks the same “Illusion Argument” in a different way. For example, argument one, addresses one’s perception of having choice, arguing that even though it may be an illusion you still have a strong enough perception of choice that you will always act as though you have the ability to choose any of the different possibilities.
Haas and Flower then provide an example [Page 177], of the differences of a student reader and an experienced reader. The example shows a remarkable difference between the two, the student reader was able to identify the situation and paraphrased what he found out. The experienced reader not only identified the situation, but provided a theory to attempt to explain what the author was trying to do; this is quite different than what the student reader provided. I believe Haas and Flower added the example to emphasize the difference of the conclusions that the student reader and the experienced reader came to. By adding the example, Haas and Flower were also able to support rhetorical reading and the difference it made between the readers. Haas and Flower then state the following: “While the student reader is mainly creating a gist and paraphrasing, the experienced reader does this and more – he then tries to infer the author’s purpose and even creates a sort of strident persona for the writer” [Haas and Flower, 177] The following quote is basically the description of the experiment, and explains the difference in the student reader’s response to the experienced reader’s
Overall, memories does not provide certainty because what we see or remember may not be reality. Also, the way we remember something can be changed throughout time and that memory will eventually fade away. Although certainty is blessing because it provides us warmth, comfort and secure, it is more of a great danger because it gives out false information and tricks our mind into believing something that is not real or true. Therefore, I am fully convinced by Gould’s essay because I completely doubt what people observe or remember since memories does not provide certainty.
In the November 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine, David Quammen had an article titled “Was Darwin Wrong?”. This article addresses the same overall topic as Lieberman and Vrba’s article in that they both informing people about the evolutionary theory of macroevolution. However, the difference is that “Was Darwin Wrong?” is a magazine article. While journal articles are for the academic reader who is being critical and reading to look further into a specific research field, magazine articles are those who are reading for pleasure. Quammen’s article is aimed towards readers who are reading the magazine just to learn new things and doing this out of pleasure. He uses simple and easy to use language that the common person can understand. This is evidenced by the sentences, “The rest of us generally agree. We plug our televisions into little wall sockets, measure a year by the length of Earth's orbit, and in many other ways live our lives based on the trusted reality of those theories” (Quammen 1). This greatly differs from the journal article that uses sentences like, “The most problematic case relevant to the definition of species selection is when differences in levels of organismal variability cause species sorting involving differential extinction in one of two sister groups” (Lieberman and Vrba 116). In comparison to the article about Stephen Jay Gould, this article is
Moreover, as mentioned before, in my opinion, Strawson’s objection is not convincing enough to reduce the strength of Russell’s Theory of Definite Description.