Written Part
Throughout these 6 weeks, the Critical Thinking course has taught me how to read, interpret, dissect, and refute arguments. Before the course, my method of refutation was to attacks facts or look for a misuse of words. Occasionally, I would try to apply some logic to the arguments, but that was a rare case. The division of arguments has been pivotal in discovering new methods of argumentation; loopholes and arguments allow the reader to break down ideas in order to properly analyze the. Additionally, the chapters about logical fallacies, my personal favorite part, taught me about many types of errors committed on a daily basis by individuals throughout many fields. Applying these fallacies makes for stronger arguments as one …show more content…
It seems like the author wants to paint a narrative where the decision is still being analyzed and could be reversed. This attempt by the author dismantles credibility as some readers will not know exactly who to trust. The author cites various sources including Steve Bannon, Rex Tillerman, and Elon Musk discussing its potential effects. Their fame makes them known and relatable to the reader, who will, as a result, consider their points. In my opinion, the writer should report that Trump’s move is uncertain and explain why instead of trying to infer through his associations considering this leads to certain errors.Nevertheless, after speculation from the author, he concludes that the information presented at the time could not confirm Trump’s move to leave the Paris Agreement. My first analysis of the Trump Climate Change piece attacks the argument on basic levels. This second analysis analyzes Trump’s rhetoric, while also analyzing how the author tries to create the argument. Trump does commit various errors throughout his argument for the withdrawal of the Paris Agreement, but that does not exclude the author from committing errors in his article. That being said, the knowledge acquired from the course has allowed for a complete assessment of arguments with the use of loopholes, fallacies, and the ability to improve the breakdown of the
Throughout these 6 weeks, the Critical Thinking course has taught me how to read, interpret, dissect, and refute arguments. Before the course, my method of refutation was to attacks facts or look for a misuse of words. Occasionally, I would try to apply some logic to the arguments, but that was a rare case. The division of arguments has been pivotal in discovering new methods of argumentation; loopholes and arguments allow the reader to break down ideas in order to properly analyze the. Additionally, the chapters about logical fallacies, my personal favorite part, taught me about many types of errors committed on a daily basis by individuals throughout many fields. Applying these fallacies makes for stronger arguments as one …show more content…
It seems like the author wants to paint a narrative where the decision is still being analyzed and could be reversed. This attempt by the author dismantles credibility as some readers will not know exactly who to trust. The author cites various sources including Steve Bannon, Rex Tillerman, and Elon Musk discussing its potential effects. Their fame makes them known and relatable to the reader, who will, as a result, consider their points. In my opinion, the writer should report that Trump’s move is uncertain and explain why instead of trying to infer through his associations considering this leads to certain errors.Nevertheless, after speculation from the author, he concludes that the information presented at the time could not confirm Trump’s move to leave the Paris Agreement. My first analysis of the Trump Climate Change piece attacks the argument on basic levels. This second analysis analyzes Trump’s rhetoric, while also analyzing how the author tries to create the argument. Trump does commit various errors throughout his argument for the withdrawal of the Paris Agreement, but that does not exclude the author from committing errors in his article. That being said, the knowledge acquired from the course has allowed for a complete assessment of arguments with the use of loopholes, fallacies, and the ability to improve the breakdown of the