What Is President Kennedy's Argument Affecting The Truth?
After watching President Kennedy’s inaugural address and supposing that I opposed President Kennedy’s ideas, the steps that I would take to evaluate his arguments can be found in this week’s chapter on p. 219 and are as follows:
• Step 1: After fully listening to President Kennedy’s argument, I would identify any hidden premises that might have been included in the argument. If any part of the argument was complex, I would make sure to break down all parts of the argument that were expressed in order to better evaluate it.
• Step 2: I would examine each part of the argument for any errors affecting the truth; I would ask pointed questions about the argument, taking nothing for granted. I would identify any instances of either/or thinking, …show more content…
I would argue that the changes that needed to be made should depend and be based off of the errors that were already found in his argument. University of Phoenix. (2009). The Art of Thinking. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, HUM_111 website.
• Double Standard: Basically, a double standard occurs when someone is judged by an action differently than those judged by the same action because of who they are or what position they may hold. Double standard is a form of a prejudice where someone’s race, color, job status, religion, or relationship is judged based off of the action they took.
• Irrational Appeal: An irrational appeal is defined almost exactly as it is stated: an appeal that is “irrational”. People who are guilty of this error affecting the truth make their appeals solely based of off traditional thinking or, make their appeals because they want to follow the same trend that everyone else seems to follow. Irrational appeal can also be the case because someone of authority is making the appeal, therefore not wanting to question the conclusion of the
• Step 1: After fully listening to President Kennedy’s argument, I would identify any hidden premises that might have been included in the argument. If any part of the argument was complex, I would make sure to break down all parts of the argument that were expressed in order to better evaluate it.
• Step 2: I would examine each part of the argument for any errors affecting the truth; I would ask pointed questions about the argument, taking nothing for granted. I would identify any instances of either/or thinking, …show more content…
I would argue that the changes that needed to be made should depend and be based off of the errors that were already found in his argument. University of Phoenix. (2009). The Art of Thinking. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, HUM_111 website.
• Double Standard: Basically, a double standard occurs when someone is judged by an action differently than those judged by the same action because of who they are or what position they may hold. Double standard is a form of a prejudice where someone’s race, color, job status, religion, or relationship is judged based off of the action they took.
• Irrational Appeal: An irrational appeal is defined almost exactly as it is stated: an appeal that is “irrational”. People who are guilty of this error affecting the truth make their appeals solely based of off traditional thinking or, make their appeals because they want to follow the same trend that everyone else seems to follow. Irrational appeal can also be the case because someone of authority is making the appeal, therefore not wanting to question the conclusion of the