Easy humanities assignment

I’m working on a Social Science exercise and need support.

These need to be in separate documents

1) IDENTIFYING FALLACIES IN OTHERS’ REASONING

IntroductionThis assignment provides an opportunity for you to examine others’ reasoning for logical fallacies. You have the tools to critically examine the thinking of other people to determine if it is logical or illogical.

The Assignment Go to the link below and pick a magazine or newspaper article, or find a website containing an article about a particular topic in which you are interested.

Attempt to identify at least two fallacies, explain how they undermine the credibility and quality of the thinking in the article, and suggest how the thinking could be improved.

Include bibiographical information about your article using MLA guidelines for online sources: Author, article title, date, URL, etc.

Resources Newspaper Links

Elements to Look for in the Online Article:

  1. Author
  2. Purpose/agenda of article
  3. Quality/quantity of information provided

Specifications

  1. Acceptable Length: 1-2 pages
  2. Formatting Requirements:
    1. Doublespace
    2. Use size 12 Times New Roman font
    3. Place your name and page number at top right of every page

To get a top score, your paper should:

  • Accurately identify at least two fallacies
  • Clearly and thoroughly explain the fallacies

2) IDENTIFYING FALLACIES IN YOUR THINKING

Introduction
To begin to develop one’s skills as a critical thinker, one needs to be able to recognize the quality of thought’s building blocks, the ideas, assumptions, conclusions, transitions, cause and effect relationships, questions, etc., which comprise arguments, positions, and philosophies. Often, weaknesses in those areas can diminish the strength of thinking, can lead to intellectual mistakes and even irrational, sometimes dangerous behavior. As architects of thought, students can improve the durability and value of their own intellectual output by avoiding these pitfalls and thus prevent their mental “buildings” from collapsing upon them. Also, as consumers of intellectual product, they can recognize weak thinking before they subscribe to it, absorb it, and allow it to influence their attitudes, perspectives, decision-making, and actions.

The Assignment
In order to become skilled in locating logical fallacies and irrational impulses such as egocentrism in both your own work and that of others, take a paper you have written for another course and scrutinize it for weaknesses. (If you do not have a paper you can use, look for something else you have written: journal entries, letters to the editor, personal letters, etc.) Look for places where you reached conclusions without sufficient evidence to support them, where you made sweeping generalizations without having a broad base of data to validate them, where you have used slander to try to undermine someone’s position rather than looking at their ideas, or any of the other mistakes you learned about in this module. Try to be as honest in your assessment of your thinking as you can. Pretend you are seeing the work for the first time, and ask yourself if you would be persuaded by the structure and content of your argument.

Take the statements you find which are weak and list them in a document. Underneath each, identify which fallacy(ies) and irrational impulses (egocentrism, sociocentrism) are present and try to rework them, so that they are more logically sound, more accurate, more fair, and more comprehensive.

Specifications

  1. Acceptable Length: 1-2 pages
  2. Formatting Requirements:
    1. Doublespace
    2. Use size 12 Times New Roman font
    3. Place your name and page number at top right of every page
  3. To get a top score, your paper should be clear, precise, and in-depth and should:
    1. Clearly and accurately identify the fallacies present in your work and that of others and explain fully what the particular weakness(es) are and how they diminish the quality of the argument being presented.
    2. Demonstrate the ability to effectively revise weak thoughts and positions into strong ones by providing sufficient information, making logical transitions, and avoiding unsubstantiated attacks against other thinkers rather than against other thoughts.