Gretchen Weirob's Argument Analysis

Critical thinking involves skillfully analyzing and assessing thoughts, using abstract ideas to interpret thoughts effectively, and coming to well reasoned conclusions. Peter Elbow’s proposal is different than what we ordinarily call critical thinking because the doubting game is “seeing” while critical thinking is “looking for.” When people think critically, they question others, they want to see all evidence involved that supports their argument, and they want to answer all questions involving their side of the argument. Critical thinkers tend to stay on the side of an argument that seems more logical or that makes the most sense to them without trying to believe the side that seems illogical. They look for the flaws in the other argument rather than looking at their own through the eyes of the individual with the opposing idea. Elbow’s proposal involves accepting more than one

While the choice of whether to remain loyal to the crown or join the revolution became popular in the late eighteenth century, two men, Jonathan Boucher and Thomas Paine, decided to voice their beliefs and later became well known for their arguments. Though Boucher stated strong points about why remaining loyal to Great Britain was the correct choice, Paine’s argument was more appealing because he clarified that America would offer various inviting benefits that Britain was not able to provide.

Cynthia B. Cohen 's argument against using harm-causing reproductive technologies is, she believes it would be wrong to forge ahead with these technologies despite the significant proportion of children born with serious illness and disorders. Cohen believes that the use of reproductive technologies produces serious deficits in a small number of children and asks whether, if this is so, it would be wrong to continue to use them.

Trooper Doherty stated that he asked Tiffany Taylor about their travel itinerary and the odor. He added that Tiffany Taylor stated that they were coming from Atlantic City, NJ, celebrating her birthday and that she had one drink early in the evening. He further stated that Tiffany Taylor advised that she was headed back to Roselle, NJ.

Faith and reason are thought to be foundations of defense for religious beliefs, having the same purpose many theologians and philosophers argue their relationship. Many believing that reason relies on faith while others think that just because you do not believe in one you are going to believe in the other, Karen Armstrong would agree since she suggests that they are not like political parties. Many theorists believe that reason is more on the logical side of the spectrum while faith is directed towards your beliefs and understandings of religious and theological claims. While scientists have argued they are not compatible because reason by itself gives us the answers to human life and faith is not a reliable source to provide us with those answers. Terry Eagleton suggests that they are one in the same and rely on each other.

This paper will discuss the problem of evil. In the first part, I will discuss Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheist stance and William Lane Craig’s theist stance on the problem of evil. In the final part of this paper, I will argue that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is stronger.

Philosophers are on a constant struggle to determine if free-will is real or an illusion. Joshua Knobe believes we will do a better job addressing philosophical questions if we “can arrive at a better understanding of the way our own minds work” and free-will is a very important part of our brain, if it were to exist (Experiments in Philosophy, Pg.3). Some philosophers may argue that if free will is an illusion “you couldn’t come up with a philosophical stance on […] new information and act on it, because that implies choice and choice is a product of free will” (If scientists unequivocally proved free will was an illusion, how would society change, if at all?, Pg. 1). So to my wonder, would there be philosophical thinking without free will?

The blue eyed – brown eyed experiment in my opinion is indeed ethical. The issue at hand with this experiment is will it cause permeant future psychological damage. Jane Elliott conducted this experiment with her third-grade students which some would say it is too harsh of an exercise for a group that young; She wanted to teach her student that discrimination is wrong which have been a topic they discussed from the first day of school but felt the student would become confused with the fact she just honored Dr. king in the month of February and now she had to explain to them that he was assassinated because of discrimination. Jane Elliott agreed that this exercise can do Psychological damage if not conducted correctly but the benefits are remarkable.

Honestly, I didn’t understand why Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner was so life-changing until a random conversation, two years after I first read the book. Unusual isn’t it - our favorite books typically stand out as soon as we read them. But the best books are the ones that you have to think about, the ones that mean something special - the ones that cause self-reflection.

Some students tend to forget their teachers when they are done with school. Melissa Hoebee, a teacher who currently teaches in Southern Middle School, shares about her life in teaching and life experiences from her childhood to today. She chose to be a teacher because she wanted to help people learn in school. These life experiences and events before in her childhood helped her become the teacher she is today.

The recent hot debate in our society focuses on the new controversial policy for public bathrooms to be identified as gender neutral. People who identify as a gender other than their biological sex are allowed to use the bathroom based on how they identify themselves. Elizabeth Vliet, is a current physician, has acquired specialized training from Johns Hopkins Sexual Medicine Consultation team, and provides her stance about the gender neutral bathroom policy will promote the increase of danger, especially for women. Vliet has treated numerous patients over the years regarding sex and gender issues. Vliet has identified some similar characteristics among the patients she treated over the years. According to

Alvarez uses Minerva’s demand that her father earn her respect to show how she created her own inner strength and power in order to challenge her gender role. The discovery that Minerva’s father has another family and has kept it a secret leads Minerva to feel betrayed. In response to his excuses she says, “’I don’t owe you a thing,’ I said. My voice was as sure and commanding as his. ‘You’ve lost my respect’” (Alvarez 89). Minerva needs people to earn her respect; she is not going to hand it out to anyone. She has morals and her father has broken them, so he doesn’t deserve her respect – as a male he thinks he has the authority to do this, but she knows better. Minerva challenges the female portrayal by not blindly listening and following

"It took me quite a long time to develop a voice, and now that I have it, I am not going to be silent." —Madeleine Albright. In the 19th century, women did not have many rights to their name. They could not vote, they could not own property, and even speaking in public was looked down upon. Anti-slavery advocates existed, but women’s rights advocates did not. However, women began to speak out for their beliefs and slowly but surely, a women’s rights movement arose. Angelina Grimké happened to be a anti-slavery advocate while also defending women’s rights. Grimké was an example of the increased rights women pushed for such as free speech and rights based on gifts, talents, and moral structures of each individual.

When Alice Paul tells Senator Leighton that she “perpetuates the lie everyday at breakfast,” she is referring to the lie that most women felt fulfilled within their role in society and how most women lacked independence, ultimately giving up meeting their husbands and societies standards of marriage.

In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument.