Assignment 2: Discussion—Comparison of Editorials this is humanity 200

Assignment 2: Discussion—Comparison of Editorials

In this assignment, you will identify and explore your intuitive critical-thinking strategies. It is the starting point to developing the skills to analyze information critically.

Research methods of identifying strong and weak arguments using your textbook and the Argosy University online library resources. Be sure to cover the following:

• Identify premises and conclusions
• Discuss whether or not an inference is warranted
• Determine whether arguments utilize inductive or deductive reasoning

For this assignment, your facilitator will assign you one of the following debates:

• Debate 1: Should the “Ashley X” treatments have been permitted?
• Debate 2: Is Osama Bin Laden’s death a decisive blow to Al Qaeda or an unmitigated victory against terrorism?

Each debate has two sets of articles for review. Your facilitator will assign you one of these sets.

Each set has two articles with two varying, but important, perspectives on the same subject. Be sure to read both articles in the set.

Debate 1:

These pairs of articles focus on the subject of “Ashley X,” a child with static encephalopathy who underwent radical surgical procedures to facilitate her care and, thereby, ostensibly improve her quality of life.

Set A

• Lewis, J. (2007, January 6). The moral line in medicine shifts once again. The Independent, p. 37. (ProQuest Document ID 311096455).  
  
  http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/311096455/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34899
• Singer, P. (2007, January 26). A convenient truth [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.21.(ProQuest Document ID: 433487228).
  
  http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/433487228/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34899

Set B

• Lindemann, H., & Nelson, J. L. (2008). The romance of the family. The Hastings Center Report, 38(4), 19–21. (ProQuest Document ID 222368438).
  
  http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/222368438?accountid=34899
• Picard, A. (2007, January 11). It's wrong to keep disabled girl as an ‘angel’. The Globe and Mail, p. A.17. (ProQuest Document ID 383481551).
  
  http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/383481551/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34899

Debate 2

These pairs of articles focus on the subject of Osama Bin Laden’s death and the alleged implications his death are expected to have on matters of future Al Qaeda activity and international safety.

Set A

• Clarke, R. A. (2011, May 3). Bin Laden’s dead. Al Qaeda’s not [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.23. (ProQuest Document ID 864311946).
  
  http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/864311946/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34899
• Soufan, A. H. (2011, May 3). The end of the Jihadist dream [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.23. (ProQuest Document ID 864311556). Retrieved from http://www.thecampuscommon.com/library/ezproxy/ticketdemocs.asp?sch=auo&turl=http://search.proquest.com/docview/864311556

Set B

• Clarke, R. A. (2011, May 3). Bin Laden’s dead. Al Qaeda’s not [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.23. (ProQuest Document ID 864311946).
  
  http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/864311946/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34899
• Nocera, J. (2011, May 3). 4 questions he leaves behind [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.23. (ProQuest Document ID 864311864).
  
  http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/864311864/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34899

Respond to the following:

• Identify and explain the strongest argument in each article.

Or

• Identify and explain the weakest argument in each article.

Give reasons and examples from your research in support of your response.

Your initial response should be about 300–400 words in length, with at least one reference cited in APA format. Be sure to reply to at least two of your classmates using at least 75 words per response.

By Saturday, October 11, 2014, post your response to the appropriate Discussion Area. Through Wednesday, October 15, 2014, review and comment on at least two peers’ responses.

Grading Criteria and Rubric

Assignment 2 Grading Criteria	Maximum Points
Initial Discussion Response	16
Discussion Participation	16
Writing Craftsmanship and Ethical Scholarship	8
Total:	40

Note:  All discussion assignments in this course will be graded using a rubric. Download the discussion rubric and carefully read it to understand the expectations.

Disclaimer:

The views and opinions expressed in the interviews and/or commentaries in the selected articles are solely of the individuals and are not the views/beliefs of Argosy University Online or the facilitator. The selected articles were chosen for the high caliber of critical discussion and argument they demonstrate, not for their content.