I agree and disagree with Kakutani. I believe in some paragraphs she gives very little evidence and doesn’t explain her reasoning. In other instances I believe she is right and makes people second guess what Gladwell is trying to say. Gladwell draws a connection between national cultures that “place highest emphasis on effort and hard work”. He notes that students from Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Japan score high on country-by-country ranked math tests.
The author will usually rely on his examples to prove is arguments. He does not explain the claims he makes, which decrease the strength of his arguments. For example, he mentions that a high-five is “not the mutual appreciation of achievement, but the feeling we get upon the achievement of mutual appreciation”. This statement is arguable, some people perform the high-five to actually show appreciation of achievement rather than of trying. The author does not signify whatsoever why the high-five does not mean “job well-done”.
As it stands, however, Harjo 's argument more forcefully establishes a sense of outrage and empathy more than a sense of measured logic. This piece could have been improved if she had more logical appeal. Imagine someone who 's not very emotional reading this that wouldn 't be persuaded that we should stop digging up the
For an example, rather than believing that a person is bad, someone can believe that a person is trusted. Descartes did not truly believe that the information that we receive through our senses is exactly correct. We know that some of our experiences are incorrect only because we are able to know some of them are correct, and for that we have to depend on other. Descartes uses the method of doubt to find true knowledge, but Hume for instance, had different methods what he thought about about how to find true knowledge which Descartes disagreed on. Rene Descartes, believes doubting everything is absolutely way to find true knowledge.
Penrod’s argument may have several flaws, but overall it is effective because the reading he uses a few appeals throughout; however, not all of his appeals are trustworthy or objective at times, his appeals are still effective through the use of supporting sources, clear-cut thesis, and thought-provoking statements. Penrod claims that popular events are getting more recognition than needed compared to the intellectuals. From a personal perspective, this presents that there are still anti-intellectuals out there. According to a commentary by the screen name of “ArCaNe,” “Man how I hate nerds… if I ever had a tommygun with me… I would most probably blow each one of their… heads off.” In other words, the commentary has hatred towards intelligent individuals improving the point of anti-intellectualism.
Convincing speaker, but not effective. The hero of the environmental debate? Yet he doesn’t care at
Even though action research is gaining popularity in the research arena, it has been challenged if it is “a legitimate form of inquiry” (Stringer, 2014, p. 41). There are a variety of reasons why this is so. Cohen and Manion (1985) point out the main drawback in action research that it lack what is commonly understood to be scientific rigor, related to the validity, reliability and replicability of research. Nunan (2006) and Burns (1999) both identify that researcher faces problems when conducting action research: the teacher/researcher may find it difficult to critically reflect on their own teaching practice at the same time, and may lacks expertise in carrying out such a project. There can be also difficulties in identifying participants,
Whilst utilitarianism supports democracy and encourages people to act selflessly, it is due to the intuitive dislike that utilitarianism prompts in the minds of many, that it has been subject to several criticisms. In this essay, I will use both moral intuitions and examples to outline three of the strongest objections to utilitarianism. I will furthermore illustrate how such objections ultimately show utilitarianism to be unsuccessful. To achieve this it is, however, necessary that I discuss the concept of utilitarianism, as well as how such a theory influences the decisions and actions of moral agents.
He also expresses slight empathy when referring to his opposition. This empathy, however, is brief, before he explains what went wrong, and how to fix it. Ross has a moderately useful logos appeal in his essay. He speaks logically, mentioning facts often, but not very strong facts that could sway the reader.
Acting like an ethical guideline rather than a strict rulebook suggests that perhaps the golden rule doesn’t need to be taken so literally, and is more about empathy and sympathy with another’s situation. Regardless, It does have some flaws however, a large problem with the golden rule is that everyone likes being treated different ways, for example, a masochist would enjoy being hit but many other people would not, Karl Popper wrote about his ‘platinum rule: the golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto other, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by.’ I think this is a good point because of the first criticism of the golden rule written above, however, Kant, Nietzsche and Bertrand Russel rejected this rule on a variety of grounds but the most important was its application, how can one know how others want to be treated? One could obviously ask them but this wouldn’t be widely applicable because one would have to ask every single person they interact with how they would
Despite the fact that some people believe that Rorschach tests are meaningless and unreliable; it actually is useful and accurately determines the person 'sr demeanor. The Rorschach test has been with us for from 1921. Through the 1940’s and 1950’s the test was synonymous with clinical psychologists. The rorschach test is a reliable and useful test.
Roy states the homology correctly distinguishes the music’s types and communities enjoying them, but is incorrect in its relation between them. (Roy 267). Roy argues against the strict and flawed concept of homology, just like how Frith argues against homology and they both use arguments from many sources. While he does state that the concepts of homology sometimes are correct, he cites Middleton to state that those few cases have been over-emphasized and are a disproportionate representation of what is truly going on. While Frith only goes against homology and uses his own cases.
Research from Conley indicated that Gorgias rhetoric was evil and unethical. The research done by Vailvaitcharka suggested that previous researchers are wrong to combine evil with the way in which Gorgias uses his rhetoric in the encomium. I think that both researchers have valid points. For the purpose of evaluating whether or not I agree with using rhetoric in this what, I would respond yes in regard to circumstance. Whenever an individual is educated on the subject matter at hand speech is a useful tool to guide people in making the right decisions.
Conclusively, the ‘Experience Machine’ has illustrated an intriguing counter-argument to the hedonistic claims. By illustrating the concerns and problems of the machine Nozick in turn reveals flaws in the belief that the maximisation of pleasure and minimisation of pain is all that is required for one 's wellbeing. However, it is (arguably) equally as easy to find flaws in some of Nozick’s claims too. In this way, the ‘Experience Machine’ can be considered effective in the sense that it questions the hedonist and the concept of pleasure as holding the most intrinsic value yet still not fully convincing enough to fully dismiss the