Manoush Zomorodi's Argumentative Analysis

George Potzgo, 7 Darlin Dr. Reading, Pa. 19609(484) 638-0861was advised of the identity of Investigator Sean P. Brennan and of the confidential nature and purpose of the interview, Potzgo, provided the following information:

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.

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

Driven by the belief that space was bequeathed to them, the Native Americans feel justified in defending their land against the growing encroachment of the white man as the American landscape unfolds. Their motive is the premise that a higher authority has granted them the right to the space, and that the Great Spirit has created the landscape exclusively for them. Fueled by the formation of conflict over land, the Great Ottawa Chief, Pontiac, in his speech at Detroit, seeks to persuade the tribes, including the Ottawa, Huron, and Pottawatomi to agree to resistance. Invoking the words of the Delaware prophet, Neolin, Pontiac recounts the vision which he believes justifies resistance. Neolin urges the tribes to sever all relations to the customs

Lenore Skenazy let her nine-year old son ride the subway alone. He had no phone and he was just fine. Lenore Skenazy reports that,” My son got home, ecstatic with independence. Half the people I 've told this episode to now want to turn me in for child abuse. As if keeping kids under lock and key and helmet and cell phone and nanny and surveillance is the right way to rear kids. It 's not. It 's debilitating — for us and for them. Meantime, my son wants his next trip to be from Queens.’ Today there is no increase in child abduction but actually a decrease. And because of this, there is no reason not to give children throughout California more freedom than they currently are given.

With human advancement, technology has taken on a life of its own. The current American society’s reliance on digital support has caused it to forget the importance of its humanity. The novelist, Wallace Stegner, wrote in a letter to argue for the preservation of the wilderness in order to help restore the spirituality and historical values of America, which he sent to David E. Pesonen, a research assistant for the Wildland Research Center at the University of California. His claim relays that the remaining wilderness needs to be preserved as much as possible because American society needs to remember and appreciate its ancestral roots. While he used primarily pathos as his method of persuasion, his argument lacks factual information and mentions minimal credibility.

In 1993, Scott Russell Sanders responds to an essay written by Salman Rushdie, to counteract the idea of “people who transplant themselves in ideas rather than places.” Sanders provides the American public with acknowledgements of counter-arguments, historical references, and patriotic appeals to convey his message that “movement is inherently good” isn’t as it seems from Rushdie’s point of view.

Secondly, General Zaroff evokes a level of terror never experienced before by the victim. When Rainsford first meets General Zaroff, he thinks of him as an affable man but really the General has been waiting to hunt Rainsford ever since he entered the house. As the General and Rainsford are talking about hunting General Zaroff reveals that hunting animals does not interest him anymore. The general said “We will have some capital hunting, you and I” (Connell 6). This statement makes Rainsford nervous because the General says he does not hunt animals anymore but he still hunts a very dangerous game. The General explained to Rainsford that hunting animals is too easy and the only thing animals exhibit are their instinct. General Zaroff had come

Finally, the quality of counterargument expressed throughout Garretson’s essay, has also been effected by her biased stance on vegetarianism, because she has been unable to display and acknowledge opposing views in her piece. It is very important for one to present counterarguments in their writing because it shows that the writer is not narrow-minded, and instead, is fair by considering other perspectives. Additionally, the use of counterargument adds credibility to a writing and makes the arguments that one presents more believable and trustworthy. Since Garretson does not display or acknowledge any opposing views in her essay, her arguments lose a great deal of credibility. There are many different approaches that Garretson could have taken

Sam Anderson’s piece “In Defense of Distraction” was published into the New York Magazine in 2009. Anderson wanted to evoke from the readers a feeling of security that distraction can be a “trait” that does not have to be discouraged. Although many people perceive distraction as an impediment to progress and innovation, Anderson argues the contrary as he exemplifies how diversion from focus actually is a prerequisite for creativity. To demonstrate how distraction benefits growth, Anderson aims to convince his readers through his playful and sanguine, yet still an enlightening and informative tone for his reasoning behind his assertions by validating it through his word choice and scientific evidence. Distraction is a necessary “evil” for society to move forward and craft original and unique ideas for the future.

The rivalry between students who believe they should be able to use their cell phones in class and teachers who believe them to be disrespectful has caused a ripple effect that now bleeds through many classrooms roaring its controversial head. And here we are stuck in an ongoing battle seldom won by students. The position that students should not be able to misuse their cell phones in a classroom setting is one held by the author of “Today 's Lesson: Life in the Classroom Before Cellphones” Louise Katz, who believes that “those halcyon days” were over (Katz). Likewise, Zoya Kahn, the author of “Why Cell Phones Do Not Belong In The Classroom” has a similar stance on the topic, Kahn states that “it is in everyone’s interest for instructors to

Nowadays, the world has changed.The world now are modern because of the power of technology.People may not have a good life without this technology because of people nowadays are dependence on technology mostly.As we know,the technology are created to make our life more better, easier and comfortable. We admitted that the technology are giving us a lot of benefits,but we has also realise that the technology can give bad effect for us. This is all about the people dependence on technology can affect creativity and communication.If the people just always put their hope on the technology, we will get more lazier and this can give bad effects for our life.

We depend too much on technology. There is no doubt about it. Many places of work are at a loss if their internet connection stops working. Many businesses and institutions are left high and dry if the internet or computer crashes. Every bit of information regarding business is entered into the computer. How are we supposed to conduct business without the facility of emails? How is anyone able to find information about a topic without the internet? This is how bad things have become. This is how greatly dependent we are on technology. We have forgotten about the ways people went about finding information before computers. We have forgotten how business was conducted before conference calling and emails. Now, technology has taken over our lives and it clearly affects the creativity and communication between us.

The world today is overflowing with technological gizmos which have greatly affected the lives of people. People have become overly dependent on technology. The technology seems to have control over our lives. Over the last decade, it has done nothing but become more advance from day to day. Gadgets such as computers, smart phones, and television have been invented over time to make our lives easier and more convenience. The technology has pros and cons. The effect of technology on people could be shown in several ways. However, the question that is to be addressed here is whether people’s dependence on technology has affected creativity and communication or not ? I absolutely agree that technology has affected people’s creativity and communication.

Technology refers to the use of tools, machines, materials, techniques and sources of power to make work easier and more productive. Apparently, people nowadays cannot live without science technology. There is nothing to puzzle or amaze if the people around the world have a mobile phone. Almost everything around us is the outcome or the wonderful result of technology. Development is closely related with technology. The radical change and advancement in economy, as we observe today, is the result of the modern technology. It is undeniable that technology has brought a lot of benefits to the world and improved the quality of human living. However, alas, every rose has its thorns. People’s dependence on technology has affected creativity and communication.