Scientific Argument Grinnell

When Grinnell says that science is taught “divorced from understanding” he means that students aren’t taught what is so fascinating about science, but are rather taught how to complete science assignments. He uses the example of the science fair, which is something I, fortunately never had to do in high school. I heard through the grapevine through my friends that did have to do the science fair that it was too strict. There was no room for creativity; it seemed like the project didn’t care about the student presenting something interesting in the world of science, rather it was strictly based on, as Grinnell said, the placement of certain aspects of the project. In high school, I took a very basic biology class where the teacher understood that the curriculum was taking the fun

I think that when conducting a scientific argument, we use a combination of what, how, and why. It makes the most sense that we answer all three questions because without one of the components, the argument isn’t complete. I’m a marketing major, however,

I believe that an argument made in the marketing field is going to be constructed the same as a scientific argument. For example, if a marketing firm was arguing that item A is selling better than item B because the marketing and advertising for item A was more humorous. The argument would include what we know about the advertisement for item A and how it affected sales, how we know it, – people surveyed that funnier advertisements led them to buy X product over Y product – and why we believe it – we believe that funnier advertisements and marketing routines make people more attracted to that product because they feel like that product will bring their life more joy. I’m not really sure how to answer the last question of