Critical Thinking Discussion Board Assignments | Online Homework Help
2-2 Discussion: Foundations of Logic and Reasoning
Discussion Topic
Bottom of Form
Read page 263 (“The Case Against the Death Penalty”) in your text and the Analysis Exemplar document. This will provide you with an example of how to identify the parts of an argument within a case or article.
Then, select an article from the USA Today Opinion page. Be sure to click on an editorial article marked “Opinion.” In your initial post, address the following:
- Post the link to the article that you selected.
- Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
- Using what you have learned about logic so far, discuss whether you agree with the argument that you have identified.
After you have submitted your initial post, respond to two of your peers’ opinions of their chosen essays. Read the articles that they selected and then answer the following questions:
- How effective or convincing do you think the argument is in each essay?
- Do you see the premises and conclusions in the same way as your peers? Why or why not?
RESPONSE #1
Subscribe
North Face president: Never stop fighting for our public lands: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/22/north-face-president-never-stop-fighting-our-public-lands-arne-arens-column/590964001/
Premise 1: The aesthetic value of America’s natural parks and a place to escape city life.
Premise 2: The monetary value of America’s natural parks.
Premise 4: If the land was to lose the title as a national park then all the signage would be removed from major roads and people would not know what they were missing.
Premise 5: The lack of signage means local communities will lose money.
Premise 6: Our shared community, National Parks, is in jeopardy.
Conclusion: Secretary Zinke should recognize the benefits that these national monuments provide to sustain jobs and support healthy communities and we should write to the secretary in support of National Parks.
When discussing the overall logic of the argument, I must say that the author has provided a strong inductive argument. I know this cannot be a deductive argument because if the premises are true it does not lead to a definite and necessary conclusion. However, inductive arguments contain premises that, if true, make it probable that the conclusion will be true. Thus, it is not a necessary conclusion that Zinke will recognize the benefits of National Parks. Overall, the conclusion of this argument is an opinion; there is no logical argument that national parks are necessary.
However, Arens does make a strong argument for the need of National Parks. Personally, I agree with Arens argument that there is aesthetic and monetary value in National Parks. I would also add that the land has been protected, in some cases, for thousands of years. The land has been protected for all Americans to enjoy. In our society where escaping WIFI is becoming more of a necessity, one could argue that we need National Parks more than ever.
Source:
Arens, Arne. “North Face President: Never Stop Fighting for Our Public Lands.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 12 Jan. 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/22/north-face-president-never-stop-fighting-our-public-lands-arne-arens-column/590964001/.
