Identify the major arguments that appear within one of these persuasive speeches. Where can the argument be reduced to a syllogism? Is the syllogism a valid one? Are the premises sound? Which arguments are deductive and which are inductive? Where does the speaker use a modus ponens or modus tollens argument? Does the speaker use any analogies? Are there arguments from the general to the particular or visa versa? Does the speaker use any fallacious arguments? (Please note that you may agree with the conclusion of a fallacious argument or it may be supported later by valid arguments. What makes it fallacious is that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise.) Where does the speaker appeal to ethos, pathos and logos?

Format: Introduce your analysis by summarizing the conclusion the speaker/writer draws and list the sorts of arguments that you found in the speech. Then proceed to identify the arguments and to evaluate them. You may organize them in the order they appear in the speech or in order of major arguments to minor arguments. There is some advantage to following the latter format. In order to receive an A, an analysis must take into count all major arguments, but need not address every minor argument. Make each argument a separate paragraph or use a numbered format, but use complete sentences to describe the argument and to present your analysis. For example, it does not suffice to label an argument a red-herring. You must explain why it is a red-herring.

Present your own arguments in complete sentences and in paragraph form.

Criteria for evaluation:

Accurate identification of the logical form of the arguments: inductive/deductive, modus tollens/ponens, the forms of syllogisms, etc.

Accurate assessment of validity.

Identification of weaknesses in invalid arguments.

Identification of all major arguments.

Identification of a variety of arguments.

Quality and clarity of prose composition.

Epistemological and Metaphysics Presuppositions of Your Discipline Essay: 25%
Objective: to identify the bedrock presuppositions of your discipline, those which can neither be proven or disproven that inform disciplines.

Designing your interview questions
Go through the following list of generic questions and select and reshape the ones appropriate to your discipline. Look at the questions in Falikowski pages 173-174 and 175-176. Can any of these be adapted for your discipline? Generic Questions:
1. What is the object of study?
2. Does my discipline allow for a platonic metaphysic where transcendent true ideas can be sought? Or does my discipline draw a sharp line between the physical world and the transcendent?
3. What is the source of knowledge? Is it purely empirical? How important is reducing knowledge to measurable truths in my discipline? What role do statistics play?
4. What is my discipline willing to treat as certain? Does it qualify certainty within its methodologies or in overt ways? How close do members of my discipline come to being logical positivists? How willing are members of my discipline to publish things of which they are not certain and why they cannot verify? How do members of my discipline deal with the problem of infinite regress?
5. Does our discipline make a sharp distinction between the fact/value distinction? What role do value judgments play in our field? What criteria do we use to measure whether something is good or bad?
6. Do the members of my discipline speak as though they are naïve realists, but acknowledge that Descartes and Kant are correct in some way?
7. Does my discipline look for immutable laws (e.g. the laws of nature)?
8. Does my discipline use words like beauty or justice? How do we know about such things according to my discipline? Are these words referring to something like Plato's forms or are they more like Locke's secondary products of primary impressions?
9. When my discipline studies phenomenon, do they make sharp distinctions between participants and observers? Is the word objectivity important in my discipline? If so, how is it used or qualified? 10. What does my discipline say about the capacity of language to describe the world? Is language one of the principle ways of representing knowledge in my discipline? If so, what sorts of presuppositions about the nature of language are made in my discipline? Remember, the philosophy of language is really the child of epistemological investigation?
11. Does it make sense to ask any of the following metaphysical questions?

What does our discipline have to say about the nature of evil?
Does your discipline presuppose any particular relationship between the mind and the body? Does your discipline consider the role of a soul?
Does our discipline presuppose that human action is determined or the produce of freewill? Does our discipline try to account for freewill?
Does my discipline presuppose a deterministic world governed by laws in either the physical and the social realm or in both?

Suggested Paper Format:

Paragraph One: Describe your discipline in general terms. What sorts of things do you study? What are the objectives?

Body: Organize ­ 1.1 1.2 1.3
1. items related to the object of study
2. items related to certainty or verification
3. items related to metaphysical matters

Conclusion: You may want to say something about any hesitation you have about committing to your discipline, or you may write something about the difference between the epistemological and metaphysical position of your discipline and what you believe.

Criteria for Evaluation:

Clarity of Prose

Statements appropriate to the topic

Critical understanding of course material

Accurate representation of discipline

Coherence between description and conclusions

Nuanced and multifaceted presentation (i.e. your paper should answer a number of different kinds of questions)

C: satisfied basic requirements of the assignment, but provides little more than a representation of modern epistemological and metaphysical assumptions or a naive realism.

B: satisfied the requirements of the assignment and directs questions to particular features of one's discipline.

A: demonstrates insight into the epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions of one's discipline through the use of cogent and coherent expression and analysis.

Attendance and Participation: 10%

Failure to hand in reading assignments on the due date will result in a lost of .25% of your participation grade. Failure to hand in a reading assignment will result in the lost of 1 point of your possible10 points for participation. Each unexcused absence will result in the loss of 1 point of your possible 10 points for participation.

90-100% A is reserved for work that is original, insightful and indicates a mastery of the material.
75-89% B signifies that the work is competent and demonstrates an adequate grasp of the concepts of the course.
65-74% C signifies work that is wanting either in presentation, understanding or accuracy
50-64% D indicates that all work has been submitted but the quality is wanting in
presentation, understanding and accuracy.

Evaluation in this course is based upon demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the course content and application of concepts and knowledge in a variety of contexts. Beliefs and opinions are not evaluated in this course, rather clear articulation of ideas and reasoned judgment are attributes that students should seek in the expression of their beliefs in order to attain desired grades.

Due dates are firm. A draft of the paper must be handed in on the due date. A late assignment will be subject to a penalty of 5 % per day up to 25% total. Students may submit a revised version of a paper any time before the final exam.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism entails the use of the ideas and/or words of a source without citation. Students must use one of the forms of citation described by M.L. Keen and K. H. Adams, Easy Access: The Reference Handbook for Writers, the writing manual assigned in English 110. Any assignment containing plagiarism will receive an automatic 0. All incidents of plagiarism will be reported to the Academic Dean's office.
Collusion: Collusion entails the representation of another students work as one's own or allowing another student to submit one's work as their own. Any assignment containing collusion will receive on grade to be shared by the students involved. This means that if two students who have colluded receive a grade of 60%, they will each receive 30% for the assignment. If the collusion entails use of an assignment submitted in a previous year or to a different course, it will be treated as plagiarism. All incidents of collusion will be reported to the Academic Dean's office.