I need a two part paper written for my Business and Society

 

Students, please view the “Submit a Clickable Rubric Assignment” in the Student Center.
Instructors, training on how to grade is within the Instructor Center.

Assignment 1.1: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay – Part I
Prewriting
Due Week 2 and worth 30 points

When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking by playing the “Believing Game.” The Believing Game is about making the effort to “believe” – or at least consider – the reasons for an opposing view on an issue.

The assignment is divided into two (2) parts.
In Part I of the assignment (due Week 2), you will first read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes: “The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful” at http://

www.procon.org

/sourcefiles/believinggame . Next, you will review the Procon.org Website in order to gather information. Then, you will engage in prewriting to examine your thoughts.
Note: In Part II of the assignment (due Week 4), you will write an essay geared towards synthesizing your ideas.

Part I – Prewriting: Follow the instructions below for this prewriting activity. Use complete sentences and ad

here

to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.
1. Select one (1) of the approved topics from the www.procon.org Website and state your position on the issue.
2. From the Procon.org Website, identify three (3) premises (reasons) listed under either the Pro or Con section – whichever section opposes your position.
3.For each of the three (3) premises (reasons) that oppose your position on the issue, answer these “believing” questions suggested by Elbow:

1. What’s interesting or helpful about this view?
2. What would I notice if I believed this view?
3. In what sense or under what conditions might this idea be true?”

The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing:

• Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph.
• Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.
• Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA Style format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

• Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language.
• Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking.
• Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.

Click here to view the grading rubric..

GUIDANCE FOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 1.1

Posted on: Monday, January 8, 2018 11:09:00 PM EST

TIPS AND GUIDANCE FOR THIS WEEK’S WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 1

 

Well week 1 is over. I have already graded your posts to the week one discussion thread and most of you did pretty well. I am commenting on them in the next announcement. Most of you are involved in the webtext and have submitted you homework for week one which if submitted has been graded. Now in week 2 you have another discussion thread, and another chapter of the webtext with homework. BUT you also have your first written assignment. It is a short assignment, 200 to 400 words long. It asks you to analyze a hot button controversial issue such as should abortion be legalized. Or the extension of the program for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) the immigration policy that would allow some illegal immigrants who entered the country as minors receive renewable two years extension from deportation and be eligible for a work permit while they study. Should that program continue or be eliminated. Congress is now dealing with that controversy. There are many other controversies to choose from as the topic of your paper in the www.procon.org website.

This assignment known officially as Written Assignment 1.1 is worth 30 possible points is due at the end of this week (Week 2) on Sunday, January 14th, at midnight (I will accept submissions until Monday January 15th EST at 9AM). The assignment is a paper that is between 200 and 400 words long and it should include the following items:

1. A clear statement of your position on the controversy you selected for the writing assignment from the 

www.procon.org

 website. An example of such a controversy is the hot button issue of the legalization of Abortion I just mentioned. There are many more. 

2. An Identification of three reasons opposing your position to your position these reasons can also be found in the www.procon.org website. Or you use other reasons.

3. Ask and answer three believing questions found in Peter Elbow´s article The Believing game in section 2.6 of the chapter on Barriers in the webtext 

http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/believinggame

. These questions are about the reasons opposing your position or view. Here are the questions: 

a) What is helpful or interesting about the view opposed to mine
?

b) 
What would I notice if I believed that my opponents view is true

?

c) In what sense or under what conditions could my opponents view be true? 

The purpose of these questions is to place yourself in the shoes of your opponent, to see the controversy as she or he sees it and to notice how your awareness of why your opponent thinks as she or he does changes or does not change your view. 

So you are not asked to refute the views of your opponent; on the contrary you are being asked to analyze the issue from your opponents point of view. I make some comments on this in a video in the Instructor Insight Tab. Do not get drawn into the controversy to argue in favor of your view or position. You would be missing the point of the assignment. Instead analyze the controversy as a forensic scientist analyzes a dead body. As always if you have questions email or call 703 424 4576. Gook luck.