Argumentation and Advocacy

I need each question answered in 150 words each. Also, I want each reference listed with each question  
Aristotle described argumentation as the following: “For to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves, and to attack others.” Aristotle’s description of argumentation represents his view of how argumentation is a part of who we are as human beings. Do you agree or disagree with Aristotle’s viewpoint? Explain why. How has his viewpoint played a significant role in the historical development of argumentation?
Find a blog that presents and defends an argument within one of its posts. Write a paragraph evaluating the arguments as either inductive or deductive. Provide the blog link in your paragraph response. Why do you think identifying these different elements in an argument is important?
Read Chapters 1 and 2 in Introduction to Logic.
Read “Ways of Knowing and Willingness to Argue” by Schommer-Aikins & Easter, from Journal of Psychology (2009). URL:
Read “Developing Face-to-Face Argumentation Skills: Does Arguing on the Computer Help?” by Iordanou, from Journal of Cognition & Development (2013). URL:
 Read “The Language of Argumentation” by Taylor, from Science Teacher (2013). URL:
 Read “Principles in Persuasion: Beyond Characteristics of the Speaker” by Bradshaw, from Jury Expert (2012). URL:
 View “For Argument’s Sake” by Cohen, from TED Talks (2013). URL:
Read “Persuasion” from Mosdell, from Key Concepts in Public Relations (2009). URL:
Read “Chapter 1: Nature of Argumentation” by Besnard & Hunter (2008). URL:
 View “Public Speaking—Informative and Persuasive Speeches” from Films on Demand (2012). URL:

When watching or reading the news, what fallacies do you see people make most often in their arguments?
Identify a fallacy you used in a recent discussion with another person. Why did you use that fallacy and how can you address the concern without the use of the fallacy?
Read Chapter 4 in Introduction to Logic.
View the Fallacies media piece to increase your knowledge of fallacies. URL:
Read “Fallacies” by Cohen, from The Essentials of Philosophy and Ethics (2006). URL:
Read “Part IV – Of Fallacies” by True, from Elements of Logic (1860). URL:
 Read “Fallacy” by Iannone, from Dictionary of World Philosophy (2001). URL:
 Read “Worldview,” by Margas & Margas from Encyclopedia of Identity (2010). URL:
Read “Fallacies of Logic: Argumentation Cons” by Shaprio, from ETC: A Review of General Semantics (2007). URL:
Find an example in society of a dispute that is (1) based on the ambiguity of language and (2) is not a genuine dispute. Point out the differences and propose how to resolve the dispute.
Take a term that is related to a social issue you are personally interested in and clearly define it. For example, defining a right vs a privilege in the debates on health care. Comment on another student’s post by seeing if you can find an exception that is excluded from the definition given. 
Read Chapter 3 in Introduction to Logic.
Read “The Rules of the Syllogism” by Jevons, from Elementary Lessons in Logic (1912). URL:
 View “Logic: The Structure of Reason” from our Films on Demand collection. URL:

Examine an argument made in public and translate its conclusion to show one of the four standard-form categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O). Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Why or why not? Second, if its premises are true, what else can you infer about the conclusion? Analyze.
[Note: Remember that standard-form categorical propositions use affirmative or negative “to be” verbs (e.g., is, are, am, was, were, be, been, being) in its copula to set up a connection between two classes — the subject (S) and the predicate (P).]
As you are learning about propositions and contradictions, write out a view that you hold on a social issue in propositional form (A, E, I, or O). What is the logical contradiction to your view? Identify a specific group that advocates the contradiction of your viewpoint.
Read Chapter 5 in Introduction to Logic.

Using an argument from an organization you found, create the logical contradiction for the organization’s position. Be sure to properly label the quality and quantity of the propositions.
How would you communicate with someone who holds a different view than yourself in a way that is logically sound but does not deny the human dignity of the other person? 
Review Chapter 5 in Introduction to Logic
Read “Effective Argumentation in a Culture of Discord,” by Cioffi, from Accounting Education News (2005).  URL:
 Read “The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions” by Macagno & Walton, from Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (2008). URL:
Read “This Is Like That: Metaphors in Public Discourse Shape Attitudes” by Landau & Keefer, from Social & Personality Psychology Compass (2014). URL:
Read “Reflection and Reasoning in Moral Judgement,” by Paxton et al., from Cognitive Science (2012 URL:
 Read “The Structure of a Manipulation Argument” by Tognazzini, from Ethics (2014).  URL:
 Read “Arguing to Learn and Learning to Argue: Design Justifications and Guidelines” by Jonassen & Kim, from Educational Technology Research & Development (2010). URL:

Why is it important to understand how a syllogism functions when it comes to doing advocacy work? 
Provide an argument in affirmation of the topic: It is better to protect privacy over security. Your response should be at least 250 words long and include at least one source found using resources available from the school’s library or online.
Read Chapter 6 in Introduction to Logic.
Read “Deduction as Verbal Reasoning” by Polk & Newell, from Psychological Review (1995). URL:
 Read “Deduction/Induction” by Carr, from Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language (2009). URL:
Read “Induction” by Brewer and Brewer, from The A-Z of Social Research (2003). URL:
Read “Deduction” by Brewer & Brewer, from The A-Z of Social Research (2003). URL:
Read “Chapter 6, Influencing Through Induction” from pages 91-106 of Influencing Through Argument, by Huber, Snider, & Lawrence (2005). URL:
Read “Chapter 7, Influencing Through Deduction” from pages 109-132 of Influencing Through Argument, by Huber, Snider, & Lawrence (2005). URL:
Read “Deduction as Verbal Reasoning” by Polk & Newell, from Psychological Review (1995). URL:

Research an argument in the realm of apologetics and evaluate the syllogism given (e.g., the transcended argument for the existence of God). Translate the argument into a standard-form categorical syllogism with a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion that contains a major term (predicate) and a minor term (subject). Make certain the major term, minor term, and middle term are connected by an affirmative or negative copula that uses “to be” verbs (e.g., is, are, am, was, were, be, been, being) in both premises and the conclusion.
Find an argument against a position you hold. This can be in the realm of politics, religion, art, etc. Identify the form of the argument and state whether it is valid or invalid. Then, provide a response. 
 Read Chapter 7 in Introduction to Logic.

When you are asked to construct an ethical argument, what do you consider that to mean? Explain and discuss with other whether there are objective or subjective standards for ethical arguments. 
Find an outside source that argues for some specific ethical standards in its argumentation. Translate it into a syllogism
 Review Chapter 7 in the textbook. 
 Read “Martin Buber,” from the Jewish Virtual Library. URL:
View “Evidence in Argument: Critical Thinking” from our Films on Demand database. URL: