Please choose one of the following videos:
- Peter Singer’s Ethics
- Slavoj Zizek in Examined Life
- Martin Luther King Jr. on NBC’s Meet the Press in 1965
- Alan Keyes v. Barack Obama debate on death penalty
For this assignment, you will outline at least one of the arguments that you believe are made in the video you selected. In your outline:
- Identify the issue that is addressed and the conclusion that is presented.
- Identify the premises that are given in support of that conclusion.
- Explain whether or not you think the argument is convincing by presenting your reasons for this position. If you do not have evidence for your position, you should consult scholarly materials that relate to the position you present.
Here is an example of an outline about an argument from the Monty Python Argument Clinicvideo. Utilize the same structure found in the example, but be sure to provide enough detail to satisfactorily complete all aspects of the prompt.
There is no minimum word count, but you must include a title page and reference page in APA style. The only required resource for this assignment is the multimedia source you chose to analyze. This should be the source that you primarily use to complete the assignment. Secondary sources are welcome but not necessary, and they should not be used in place of the argument piece you selected.
The Ashford Writing Center (AWC) has two kinds of tutoring available to you.
- Live Chat – If you have writing-related questions about a topic before you draft a discussion post or submit a written assignment, you will now be able to chat live with a tutor for a short (up to 20 minute) conversation. Live Chat will be available Monday through Friday from 10:00-11:00 am and 4:00-5:00 pm (PST). AWC Live Chat
- Email Paper Review – If you have a draft, partial draft, or even if you’re having trouble getting started, you can complete a submission form and email your paper to the AWC for review.
- Writing Tutors will do their best to return your paper with their comments within 48 hours, not including Saturdays and Sundays. Please plan accordingly if you would like to receive feedback before an assignment due date. AWC Email Paper Review
Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.
Late Policy: Written assignments (essays, journals, presentations) are due on the specified days in the course. Written assignments will be subject to a late penalty of up to 10% per day up to three days late. If written assignments are submitted after 72 hours past the due date, instructors can give a penalty up to and including a grade of 0 for the assignment.
EXAMPLE
PHI 103 Week Two
Argument Outline Example
Media Resource:
MontyPython. (2008, November 14). Argument Clinic [Video File]. Retreived fromhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Transcript Available:
MontyPython. (2009). The Argument Sketch [Transcript]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php
Argument Outline:
CONTEXT: After a brief bit of arguing about what an argument is, John Cleese rings the bell and declares that time is up. Michael Palin pays him for a second round of arguing, but Cleese pretends he didn’t receive the money. So they begin arguing about whether Palin paid. Palin gives a clear argument that can be summarized as follows:
THE ISSUE: Did Palin pay Cleese to argue or not?
THE CONCLUSION: Palin paid.
THE PREMISES (REASONS): Palin says, “If you’re arguing, then I must have paid.” He also assumes Cleese is arguing, though he doesn’t come right out and say this.
So the argument has this structure:
1. If Cleese is arguing then Palin must have paid.
2. Cleese is arguing.
3. Therefore Palin must have paid.
EVALUATION: This initially looks like a good argument, because Cleese has already said he’s “not allowed” to argue unless Palin pays. But this is not really a good argument. As Cleese points out later, “I could be arguing in my spare time.” In other words, the first premise is false. It is not necessarily true that “If Cleese is arguing, then Palin must have paid.”
PHI103.W2A2.10.2013
Description:
Total Possible Score: 3.00
Identifies the Issue and the Conclusion of the Argument
Distinguished – Accurately identifies both the issue and the conclusion of the selected argument. The identification is clear and concise.
Proficient – Accurately identifies both the issue and the conclusion of the selected argument. The identification is slightly unclear or imprecise.
Basic – Identifies the issue and the conclusion of the selected argument. The identification of either the issue or the conclusion is unclear, imprecise, and/or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Identifies at least one required component of the selected argument. The identification of the issue and/or the conclusion is significantly unclear, imprecise, and/or inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The identification of the issue and the conclusion of the argument is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Identifies the Premises That Are Presented to Support the Conclusion
Distinguished – Clearly and accurately identifies all relevant premises that are presented to support the conclusion.
Proficient – Accurately identifies relevant premises that are presented to support the conclusion. Minor details are missing or unclear.
Basic – Identifies a majority of the premises that are presented to support the conclusion. Relevant details are missing or unclear.
Below Expectations – Identifies some of the premises that are presented to support the conclusion. Significant details are missing or unclear.
Non-Performance – The identification of the premises that are presented to support the conclusion is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Explains Whether the Argument Is Convincing
Distinguished – Thoroughly explains whether or not the argument is convincing. Presents clear reasons for the position that are grounded in logical reasoning and/or factual evidence.
Proficient – Explains whether or not the argument is convincing. Presents reasons for the position that are grounded in logical reasoning and/or factual evidence, but the reasoning lacks some clarity or supporting evidence.
Basic – Explains whether or not the argument is convincing and attempts to present reasons for the position that are grounded in logical reasoning and/or factual evidence. The reasoning lacks clarity or relevant supporting evidence.
Below Expectations – Explains whether or not the argument is convincing, but does not present reasons for the position that are grounded in logical reasoning and/or factual evidence.
Non-Performance – The explanation of whether the argument is convincing are either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors, and is very easy to understand.
Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors, and is mostly easy to understand.
Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors, which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors, which distract the reader.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Resource Requirement
Distinguished – Uses more than one scholarly source, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient – Uses one scholarly source to support ideas. The source is used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment and on the reference page.
Basic – Uses one scholarly source to somewhat support ideas. Citations may not be formatted correctly within the body of the assignment and/or on the reference page.
Below Expectations – Uses one source that provides little or no support for ideas. The source may not be scholarly, and citations are not formatted correctly within the body of the assignment and/or on the reference page.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Aligns Format of Paper With Sample Argument Outline
Distinguished – Accurately aligns the format of the paper with the format of the sample argument outline.
Proficient – Aligns the format of the paper with the format of the sample argument outline. However, the layout contains minor formatting errors.
Basic – Aligns the format of the paper with the format of the sample argument outline. However, the layout contains moderate formatting errors.
Below Expectations – Minimally aligns the format of the paper with the format of the sample argument outline. There are frequent formatting errors.
Non-Performance – The formatting is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Jermaine Byrant
Nicole Johnson
OVER
RATING
YEARS
