Internal and External Validity Both internal and external validity are incredibly significant factors in a research study. If a research study is not valid there is no reason to rely on the information gathered. Internal validity is the extent that a researcher can trust the results of their research based on the relationship of the independent and dependent variable rather than external factors. Whereas, external validity refers to how much the results of a research study can be generalized. There are many different ways both types of validities can affect research studies.
He further insists on the importance of distinguishing between avoiding injury and bringing aid as these are the most critical factors in discerning the moral grounds of numerous cases that leave us in a dilemma (pa Foot, 2010, 170). The Author is not for or against the doctrine of double effect but rather he attempts to shade light on a controversy that surrounds this principle. He criticizes the theory and shows how it can be applied in a meaningful way and also how it can be
Audience’s feeling and attitude is so fundamental in bolstering one organization. Hopes of an organization in reducing the offensiveness increased whenever it tries to bolster up by the audience’s positive perception. A second possibility is to try to minimize the negative feelings associated with the wrongful act (Benoit, 1997). The organization is able to reduce the offensiveness to the lowest possible level or prevent it from increasing beyond the level if it can minimize the risk of an unpleasant situation and make it seems less significant than it really is. Third, a firm can employ differentiation, in which the act is distinguished from other similar but more offensive actions (Benoit, 1997).
This is a resource used to help find credible and scholarly information. Without learning how to properly search for your essays topic, you could potentially get false information. That is why learning the how to use this was very helpful within this course. Within the subject of finding reliable sources, we also learned how to properly cite these sources found. When writing a paper, you need to find research that backs up your statement.
The use of the paradox in The Great Influenza by John M. Barry reveals seemingly contradictory statements true. In the second paragraph Barry believes that one must "embrace – uncertainty" (Barry). He uses this literacy device to highlight uncertainty as a welcomed sensation to be accepted, rather than denied. Along with presenting truthful statements, Barry makes every word, phrase, and sentence that he writes ultimately more powerful and read at different understanding levels by raising the bar and introducing contradicting information. Barry characterizes scientific research as contradicting.
Plagiarism is wrong and should not be done on essays or any work no matter what the circumstance because it is taking credit for someone else's work. All of this information can benefit students or someone else by showing how serious plagiarism is and what the consequences and ramifications are if you do it. The conducted research informed my knowledge on plagiarism by giving an insight on how serious this issue is. I have caught myself sometimes plagiarizing and now know how it can be avoided by you or anyone and the severity of it,
We learned that good reasoning, or logical reasoning, is the process of forming conclusions, judgements or inferences from facts or premises. The way we reason effects our ability to inform our conscience. We must ensure that our reasoning is not based on prejudices or stereotypes, and we must be autonomous thinkers. We can do this by informing our conscience and searching for the right thing and most loving thing to do when deciding what to believe and do. We learned that good reasoning is important because
177, par 2). De George also claims that there must be strong evidence that making the case public will prevent the threatened serious harm (cite). He says this so that the harm that the engineer might be exposed to will not be greater than the benefits of coming forward with the information. This is a consequentialist way to approach things because it focuses only on harm that can be prevented (mentioned in class). It overlooks the good that can be done for victims and their families by bringing the injustice to light.
It shows that arguments can even sound logical even with false premise and that conclusions can be formed with minimal relevance to the premise provided. It also shows that there is a clear difference between an effective argument and a “good” argument. The logic has to make enough sense for you audience to be persuaded not to make complete sense. Knowing this and what strategies to utilize when formulating an argument is the true key to being successful. While using a “good” argument that uses true premise to develop a conclusion is ideal it may not be as effective if the right strategies are not implemented with
The transformative capacity of metaphors should therefore not be underestimated. Metaphors “do not merely actualize a potential connotation, but establish it ‘as a staple one’; and further, ‘some of the (the object’s) relevant properties can be given a new status as elements of verbal meaning” (ibid). The transformative power of the metaphor lies in the acceptance of its role of ‘logical absurdity’ that helps us recognize the genuinely creative character of the metaphorical meaning. “Logical absurdity creates a situation in which we have the choice of either preserving the literal meaning of the subject and the modifier and hence concluding that the entire sentence is absurd or attributing a new meaning to the modifier so that the sentence