Prof.Timetest

Discussion 1- 200 words

You must post to this discussion on at least four separate days of the week, and your posts must total at least 400 words as you address the questions. Your first post must be completed by Day 3 (Thursday) and the remainder of your posts must be completed by Day 7 (Monday). You must answer all aspects of the prompt at some point during the week. Also, reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as you can. The total combined word count for all of your posts for this discussion, counted together, should be at least 400 words. Answer all the questions in the prompt, and read any resources that are required to complete the discussion properly. In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, complete your initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other posts by Day 7 (Monday). We recommend that you get into the discussion early and spread out your posts over the course of the week. Reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as you can. The topic of this week is deductive reasoning. Accordingly, in this discussion your task is to create a deductively valid argument for your position (the same position that you defended in the Week One discussion).

· To make your argument deductively valid, you will need to make sure that there is no possible way that your premises could be true and your conclusion false. Your premises must lead logically to the truth of your conclusion. Make sure that your argument is sound, that is in addition to being valid, make sure that the premises are true as far as you can tell. If your argument is invalid or if it has a false premise, revise it until you get an argument that you can stand behind.

· Write: Identify the components and structure of your argument by presenting your deductively valid argument in standard form, and explain how your conclusion follows from your premises.

HERE ARE EXAMPLES OF CLASS MATES WORK

P1: The baby is considered a living being from the moment of conception.

P2: Development and growth continuously occurs with the fetus.

P3: Remorse would not be felt by the mother or family if abortion was not morally wrong.

C: Abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life and is morally wrong.

This argument presents itself as deductively valid. Our text states that, “The same is true of deductive reasoning, because good deductive arguments are characterized by their truth-preserving nature—if the premises are true, then the conclusion is guaranteed to be true also.”(Hardy, Forster & Postigo, 2015) This argument has truthful and factual premises that support the final conclusion that abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life and is morally wrong.

Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). With good reason: A guide to critical thinking [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu

THIS IS NOT AN ESSAY look ^^^^^

Respond to these people- 100 words each

Jocylein venabe

P1: The Compassionate Use Act has already removed most penalties related to Marijuana P2: Doctors often prescribe the use of marijuana to treat a variety of illnesses P3: Alcohol, although more harmful than marijuana, is legal P4: Legalization of Marijuana could reduce the level of heavy drinking in young adults C: Therefore, legalizing marijuana produces positive social and medical benefits.  The conclusion that legalizing marijuana produces positive social and medical benefits is deductively valid because all of the premises are true. The strongest point is premise 3, which points out the fact that alcohol use is proven to be more harmful than marijuana and it has already been legalized. This fact also supports premise four that heavy drinking in young adults will reduce with marijuana use proving the social benefits (Anderson, D., Hansen, B., & Rees, D., 2013).  .Furthering these premises are the facts stated in premises one and two which is that the Compassionate Use Act has already removed most penalties related to Marijuana allowing Doctors to prescribe the use of marijuana to treat a variety of illnesses supporting the medical benefits to users.

Joshua

P1: Criminals cause shootings P2: Shootings are caused by legally or illegally bought guns. P3: Criminals can, legally and illegally, buy guns. P4: Restrictions on gun ownership will make it harder for criminals to buy guns. C: Therefore: Restrictions on gun ownership and stronger background checks will cause a decrease in shootings because criminals will not be able to purchase guns. As of the San Bernardino shooting, there have been 355 mass shootings in the United States in 2015. (Follman, 2015). People will argue that the most shootings happen in states that have the strictest gun control laws in the nation. While that may be true, criminals that cause these shootings get their guns from out of state. My first premise states that criminals cause shootings and my second premise I stated shootings are caused by legally or illegally bought guns. And my third premise I stated criminals can, legally and illegally, buy guns. I am not putting the blame on the guns but on the criminals. And my fourth premise states that restrictions on gun ownership will make it harder for criminals to buy guns. I follow the same logic and blame the criminals. Therefore, my conclusion states that restriction on gun ownership and stronger background checks will cause a decrease in shootings because criminals will not be able to purchase guns. I followed the same logic all throughout the argument and came to the conclusion that criminals are at fault. And in-order to prevent more shootings, taking guns from criminals is the logical thing to do.