Description
so they are provided many topics I just want you to choose one of them, write an argument about it , and answer some questions about the argument in a different doc that I have uploaded it
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Touchstone 4: Contrasting Normative Arguments in Standard Form
Scenario: In this assignment, you will make two contrasting normative arguments
about what one ought to do. Both arguments will be about the same topic; thus,
at least one of the arguments will contradict your personal opinion. You will
compose the arguments in standard form, as a series of statements that end with
your conclusion. Do not write your arguments as an essay.
Assignment: Download the submission template below, which further breaks
down the steps involved in this assignment. You will return the completed
template as your Touchstone submission.
I uploaded another Doc another For this assignment
A. Directions
Step 1: Choose a Topic
Choose one topic from the following list:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Should people eat meat?
Should marijuana be legal?
Should pet cats be kept indoors?
Should zoos exist?
Should customers leave a tip in a coffee shop?
Should seat belt wearing be mandatory?
Should children be required to take gym/physical education?
Should public roads be used for private car parking?
Step 2. Develop Logically Contradictory Normative Conclusions
Develop two logically contradictory normative conclusions on this topic. You do not
need to agree with both (or either!) conclusions, but you should be able to logically
support both of them.
The conclusions need not be phrased exactly the same as they are phrased in the topic
list, but they do need to be logically contradictory to one another.
EXAMPLE If you selected the topic “Should people eat meat?”, your conclusions
might be:
● People should not eat meat.
● People should eat meat.
But it would also be acceptable to choose:
● People should reduce their meat consumption.
● People need not reduce their meat consumption.
Another option could be:
● It is morally permissible to eat fish.
● It is not morally permissible to eat fish.
Note that you need not indicate which conclusion you actually agree with. An omnivore
might write an excellent logical argument for veganism, or vice versa!
Step 3: Write Normative Argument for First Conclusion
Choose your first conclusion and write a normative argument in standard form to reach
that conclusion. This requires knowledge of the standard form of logical arguments,
which you can find in 2.1.1 What Is an Argument?, and understanding of normative
arguments, which you can find in 2.1.2 Identifying Arguments and Statements. Because
normative arguments rely on standards of human behavior, you should also review 4.3.3
Moral Frameworks. The directions in the template will give you further instructions.
Step 4: Write Normative Argument for Second Conclusion
Repeat Step 3 for your second conclusion.
Here is an example of two arguments with normative conclusions taking contrary points
of view. The normative premises are marked with an asterisk. This serves as an example
of what arguments look like in standard form. This topic may not be used for your own
Touchstone.
1. Americans are granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness as a foundational principle of its founding documents.
2. Among these rights are bodily autonomy and personal decisions about
family planning.*
3. Forcing a parent to go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth
violates these principles by taking away their basic right to liberty and
long-term pursuit of happiness.*
4. Forcing a parent to go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth
also frequently presents a threat to the life of the birth parent.
5. There is no constitutional or scientific reason to confer personhood on a
fetus.
6. Any opinion on the personhood of fetuses is thus not based on law or
science, but a personal moral or religious choice.
7. The Constitution (Amendment 1) establishes the freedom of religion.
8. Therefore, any law derived from a religious stance is unconstitutional
(from 5-7).
9. Therefore, pregnant people have the right to terminate a pregnancy for
any reason (from 1-4, 8).
1. It is wrong to kill a human being without justification such as selfdefense.*
2. An unplanned pregnancy may be inconvenient, but only in rare cases
does it present a threat to a person’s life.
3. In no other cases besides abortion do we make it legal to murder people
who inconvenience us.
4. Born children are also inconvenient, but it is not legal for parents to kill
them.
5. In no other cases besides abortion do we make it legal to murder the
born children of rape or incest.
6. A fetus is a viable human being at 24 weeks.
7. Therefore, except in cases where the pregnancy presents a threat to the
birth parent’s life, abortion should be illegal after 24 weeks.
Step 5: Reflection
Answer the reflection questions about your reasoning behind the arguments you
wrote. One question asks to identify a deductive rule of inference or an inductive
practice used in your arguments. You can find these in 3.3.2 Valid Rules of
Inference From Conditional Statements, 3.3.3 Valid Rules of Inference From
Conjunction and Disjunction, and the 4.1.4 Inference to the Best Explanation, or
other inductive practices discussed throughout unit 4.
Refer to the checklist below throughout the Touchstone process. Do not submit
your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
1. Argument Preparation
❒ Is each argument in standard form, not paragraph form?
❒ Do your two arguments have logically contradictory conclusions?
❒ Is each argument at least five declarative sentences, ending in a
conclusion?
❒ Does each argument have a normative conclusion (saying what people
ought to do)?
❒ Is there at least one normative premise that supports each conclusion?
2. Annotating Your Argument
❒ Did you place an asterisk (*) on the normative premise(s) that support your
conclusion?
❒ Did you underline any subconclusions in your argument?
❒ Are there sources for any assertions that are fact-based and not well
known/accepted?
3. Reflection Questions
❒ Did you answer all five of the reflection questions satisfactorily?
❒ Do your answers meet the length requirement and fully answer the
question?
B. Rubric
Logical
Argume
nts:
Form (24
points)
Response
shows
understandi
ng of logical
arguments.
Logical
Argume
nts:
Strength
/Validity
(24
points)
Response
shows
understandi
ng of
premises
supporting a
conclusion.
Needs
Improv
ement
NonPerfor
mance
One or both
arguments fall
short of goal by
1-2 sentences,
or 1-2
sentences do
not make
declarative
statements, or
final sentence
is not a
normative
conclusion.
One or both
arguments fall
short of goal
by 3 or more
sentences, or
3 or more
sentences do
not make
declarative
statements,
or final
sentence is
not a
normative
conclusion.
Argument is
not in
standard
form, or
argument
falls so short
of goal that
no credit can
be given, or
only one
argument is
provided.
One or both
arguments
include 1-2
premises
which do not
support the
conclusion
and/or there is
no normative
statement to
support the
conclusion.
One or both
arguments
include 3 or
more
premises
which do not
support the
conclusion
and/or there
is no
normative
statement to
support the
conclusion.
One or both
arguments
are absent,
in essay
form, or are
so poorly
formed that
no credit can
be given.
Advance Proficie
d
nt
Accepta
ble
Both
arguments
meet all
requirements
of proficiency,
with notably
clear writing
and careful
sequencing of
statements.
Both
arguments
have the
minimum
number (5) of
statements. All
statements are
declarative
(make an
assertion), and
final sentences
are normative
conclusions.
Both
arguments
meet all the
requirements
of proficiency,
with a notably
convincing or
sound
argument.
Both
arguments
have premises
that show the
conclusion is
true or
probable and
have at least
one normative
premise to
support the
conclusion.
Logical
Argume
nts:
Analysis
(12
points)
Both
arguments
meet criteria
for proficiency,
with a wellformed
subargument
that is itself
valid/strong
Correctly
and provides
identifies
compelling
and
support to the
describes
components conclusion.
of a logical
argument.
Support for
premises is
included.
Both
arguments
identify the
normative
statement(s)
that support
the conclusion,
correctly
identify any
subconclusion
s in the
argument, and
include
references to
support factual
assertions that
are not well
known and
widely
accepted.
Both
arguments
each include 2
of the 3
requirements:
identifying
normative
statements in
premises,
identifying
subconclusions
, and providing
support for
factual
assertions that
are not well
known/accepte
d.
Both
arguments
each include
1 of 3
requirements:
identifying
normative
statements in
premises,
identifying
subconclusio
ns, and
providing
support for
factual
assertions
that are not
well
known/accept
ed.
Components
of argument
are not
identified as
described in
the
instructions
and no
support is
given for
assertions.
No credit
can be
given.
Demonstrates
deep
understanding
of key
concepts in the
class with
accurate and
Answers
insightful
reflection
responses to
questions
questions,
thoroughly
using the
and
appropriate
thoughtfully. vocabulary
from the
tutorials.
Supports each
answer with
specifics where
needed. Meets
or exceeds
recommended
length
guidelines.
Demonstrates
good
understanding
of key
concepts in the
class with
accurate
responses to
questions,
using
appropriate
vocabulary
from the
tutorials.
Supports each
answer with
specifics
where needed.
Meets or
exceeds
recommended
length
guidelines.
Demonstrates
some
understanding
of key
concepts in the
class but may
lack specifics
or detail, and
some answers
may be
inaccurate or
insubstantial,
or makes only
occasional or
inappropriate
use of the
vocabulary
from the
tutorials. Meets
recommended
length
guidelines.
Demonstrates
a flawed
understandin
g of key
concepts, or
answers are
so
insubstantial
that
understandin
g of the
concepts
cannot be
appropriately
assessed.
No answers
to the
questions
are present
or so little
effort is
evident that
no credit can
be given.
Reflectio
n – Key
Concept
s (30
points)
Reflectio
nCritical
Thinking
(18
points)
Demonstrates
thoughtful
reflection;
includes
insights,
observations,
and/or
examples in all
Answers to responses,
following or
questions
demonstrate exceeding
good habits response
length
of critical
guidelines.
thinking
Demonstrates
thoughtful
reflection;
includes
occasional
insights,
observations,
and/or
examples,
following
response
length
guidelines.
Primarily
demonstrates
thoughtful
reflection, but
some
responses are
lacking in detail
or insight;
primarily
follows
response
length
guidelines.
Shows limited
reflection; the
majority of
responses
are lacking in
detail or
insight, with
some
questions left
unanswered
or falling short
of response
length
guidelines.
No answers
to the
questions
are present
or so little
effort is
evident that
no credit can
be given.
Conventi There are
no
ons (12 almost
errors in
points)
grammar,
There are
minor errors in
grammar,
punctuation,
spelling, and
capitalization
that do not
impede
readability;
length and
formatting
requirements
are nearly met.
There are
frequent errors
in grammar,
punctuation,
spelling, and
capitalization
that somewhat
impede
readability;
length and
formatting
requirements
are nearly met.
There are
consistent
errors in
grammar,
punctuation,
spelling, and
capitalization
that
significantly
impede
readability;
length and
formatting
requirements
are not met.
Submission
does not
meet the
minimum
threshold for
points to be
awarded.
Submission
follows
conventions
for standard
written
English and
meets
requirement
s.
punctuation,
spelling, and
capitalization;
all length and
formatting
requirements
are met.
C. Submission Requirements
The following requirements must be met for your submission:
●
●
●
●
Use a readable 12-point font and single spacing.
The recommended length for each answer is included in the template.
All writing must be appropriate for an academic context.
Writing must be original and written for this assignment. Plagiarism of
any kind will be returned ungraded; subsequent plagiarism will receive a
grade of 0.
● Enter your name and date where prompted in the template.
● Include all of the assignment components in a single file. Acceptable file
formats include .doc and .docx.
Name:
Date:
Critical Thinking FinalTouchstone
In this assignment, you will make two contrasting normative arguments about what one ought
to do. Both arguments will be about the same topic, and so at least one of the arguments is
likely to be something you don’t actually agree with. You will compose the arguments in
standard form—that is, as a series of statements that end with your conclusion. Reminder: Do
not write as an essay!
Part I. Select your topic and arguments.
1. Choose a topic from the following list:
● Should people eat meat?
● Should marijuana be legal?
● Should pet cats be kept indoors?
● Should zoos exist?
● Should customers leave a tip in a coffee shop?
● Should seat belt wearing be mandatory?
● Should children be required to take gym/PE classes?
● Should public roads be used for private car parking?
2. Write two logically contradictory normative conclusions for the topic. You do not need to
agree with both (or either!) conclusions, but you should be able to logically support both
of them.
The conclusions need not be phrased exactly the same as they are phrased in the topic
list, but they do need to be logically contradictory to one another. For example, if you
selected the topic “Should people eat meat?”, your conclusions might be:
● People should not eat meat.
● People should eat meat.
But it would also be acceptable to choose:
● People should reduce their meat consumption.
● People need not reduce their meat consumption.
a. These conclusions will be the final line of your argument. If you revise a
conclusion after writing the argument, you should revise the conclusion here to
match.
Conclusion #1:
Enter your first conclusion here.
Conclusion #2:
Enter your second conclusion here.
Part II. Write your arguments in standard form.
1. Standard form is a series of numbered statements. Each should be one sentence long.
The final statement is the conclusion. You do not need to label statements as
premises or conclusions; it is understood by the form of the argument that all
statements are premises except the final one, which is always the conclusion.
2. There should be at least one normative statement (stating what people should do) and
at least one descriptive statement (describing something to be true). Statements that
predict outcomes or describe what people believe are not normative. A good way to
determine if a statement is normative is looking for verb phrases like “should,” “ought,” or
“have an obligation to.”
3. If any of your premises make factual statements that are not common knowledge and
widely accepted, include a source supporting your reference. This can be an APA
citation or just a link to a reputable website or publication. Here is a helpful resource for
APA references.
4. Place an asterisk (*) by the normative premise(s) that support the conclusion.
5. Do not use your conclusion as a premise. This is the fallacy of “begging the question.”
6. There may be a subargument within your argument, a conclusion reached by premises
that then becomes a conclusion that supports your premise. If there is a subargument,
underline the sub conclusion.
7. The conclusion should be the final statement in your argument (as given above) and
begin with the word “therefore.” These should correspond to the conclusions from Part 1.
8. The complete argument (including conclusion) should be 5-7 statements.
Argument #1
Insert your first argument here.
Argument #2
Insert your second argument here.
Part III. Reflection
1. Are your arguments deductive or
inductive? Explain what the difference
is between the two and why you see
your argument as inductive or
deductive. (2 sentences)
Enter answer here.
2. Identify either a deductive rule of
inference or an inductive practice that
helps support your conclusion. Explain
what the rule or practice means and
how it was used to reach your
conclusion. (2-3 sentences)
Enter answer here.
3. What moral framework do you use to
justify your normative conclusions
(utilitarian, deontological, or virtue
ethics)? Explain the meaning of the
moral framework and how adopting
that perspective leads to your
conclusion. The two arguments do not
need to follow the same moral theory.
(4-6 sentences)
Enter answer here.
4. What assumptions are you making
that may compromise your
arguments? Use language from the
tutorials that identify cognitive and
unconscious biases. This should be
about your experience, not a general
response about potential biases. (4-6
sentences)
Enter answer here.
5. What opinion did you have when you
began this assignment, and what
challenges to critical thinking did you
encounter when arguing for a
conclusion you didn’t agree with? How
did logic and critical thinking help you
to think about your topic from two
different angles? This should be about
your personal experience, not a
general response about the
challenges of considering other points
of view. (4-6 sentences)
Enter answer here.
Refer to the checklist below throughout the Touchstone process. Do not submit your
Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
1. Argument Preparation
❒ Is each argument in standard form, not paragraph form?
❒ Do your two arguments have logically contradictory conclusions?
❒ Is each argument at least five declarative sentences, ending in a conclusion?
❒ Does each argument have a normative conclusion (saying what people ought to do)?
❒ Is there at least one normative premise that supports each conclusion?
2. Annotating Your Argument
❒ Did you place an asterisk (*) on the normative premise(s) that support your conclusion?
❒ Did you underline any sub conclusions in your argument?
❒ Are there sources for any assertions that are fact-based and not well known/accepted?<
3. Reflection Questions
❒ Did you answer all five of the reflection questions satisfactorily?
❒ Do your answers meet the length requirement and fully answer the question?
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
