Houston Community College Difference Between Christians and Nonbelievers Paper

User Generated

yrra

Writing

Houston Community College System

Description

Below you will find an attached files of 1 instructions to write the argumentative paper, please make sure to understand and follow the steps, it has to be your own creative honest words NO PLAGIARISM WHATSOEVER. 2 theres a copy of a sample on how the professor wants it to look like and how it should be so please make sure to follow it as well but don't copy anything from it, just a sample to help u write the paper, 3 and the last file is the chapter ur gonna be reading and writing a paper about, please get deep and write a strong meaningful paper.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Argument Paper Instruction Guide The Argument Paper is different in important ways from the Close Reading Paper. Whereas the Close Reading is a textual interpretation assignment, the Argument Paper is an analysis argument, particularly, an analysis of an argument you find in the text. Step 0: Select you argument from one of the texts we have read or will read in class this semester. Refer back to the Close Reading Guide for tips on text selection and prewriting techniques. I really cannot emphasize the importance of prewriting enough. Just do it! Step 1: Put the argument you selected in standard form. This should be the first part of your paper. You know how to do this: no explanation necessary, just number the premises and conclusion and capture the essential structure of the argument. Step 2: This is the analysis part of the paper and probably the bulk of the writing and thinking. In this section of the paper you are going to explain how the argument works by breaking it up into its parts and walking the reader through each step of the process. Imagine you are explaining the argument to a little brother or sister or friend. What needs to be said and what can safely be left out? How does one premise lead into another? Where do the premises come from and in general, what are their justifications? Follow the inferential thread for the reader all the way to the conclusion. Step 3: This is the synthetic or critical part of the paper. Take a step back from what you’ve done previously and take it in. Pull the disparate pieces together and say something about the whole. Is this a good argument? Why or why not? Use the resources you’ve gained through the semester to talk about the argument. Is it deductive or inductive? If it is deductive, is it valid and sound? What kind of deductive inference is it or what multiple kinds of deductive inference does it involve? If it is inductive is it strong and cogent. What type of inductive inference/s does it involve? Finally, talk a bit about the context of the argument. Why is it occurring in the text in the place it is and what work is it doing? Does it successfully accomplish that work? Why is this argument important? Sample Argument Paper The argument in standard form: 1) When horses are harmed they become worse as horses 2) When dogs are harmed they become worse as dogs 3) So when man is harmed, he becomes worse in the specific virtue of man 4) The specific virtue of man is justice 5) So men who are harmed become more unjust 6) Musicians, by practicing the art of music, do not make men less musical 7) Horsemen, by practicing the art of horsemanship, do not make men less good at dealing with horses 8) So the just man, by practicing justice, does not make men less just 9) Therefore, the just man harms no one Analysis and Critique: This argument occurs in Plato’s Republic (335b-e). Polemarchus had claimed that justice is doing good to true friends and harming true enemies. Here, Socrates refutes his claim by arguing to the conclusion that the just man harms no one. Premises 1) and 2) are specific examples to set up the sub-conclusion at 3) through an inference by analogy. 1) and 2) are intuitively true—when horses are harmed they become worse at doing horsestuff, and similarly for dogs and dog-stuff. It follows that when a human is harmed, they become worse as a human and in the ability to engage in distinctly human things. Premise 4) claims that the specific or unique virtue of man is justice. The idea here is that no other creature but man possesses the capacity to exercise justice. This seems true as well, as no other animal seems to have practices surrounding justice or have a concept of justice. 5) follows straightforwardly from 3) and 4). 6) and 7) act like 1) and 2), as specific examples to set up an inference by analogy at 8). Premises 6) and 7) seem just as intuitively true as 1) and 2). By being around musicians and listening to their music, one certainly isn’t going to become worse at playing music. On the other hand, one will not necessarily become better either. The conclusion at 9) follows from 3) 4) and 8), if the just man, in practicing justice, does not make others less just, then it follows (given 3) and 4)) that the just man harms no one. One interesting thing to note about this argument is that concluding that the just man harms no one, does not entail that the just man helps anyone either. In other words, the argument does establish a general beneficence on the part of the just man to all other humans. The argument only establishes the weaker “no harm” principle—the just man will not make you less just, i.e., more unjust, but he will not necessarily make you more just either. The other interesting feature of this argument is that it appears to equivocate on the meaning of harm. When Polemarchus originally claimed that the just man does good to his friends and harms his enemies, he clearly meant harm in the sense of being able to physically defeat your enemies. The sense of harm that the argument relies on, however, is a kind of moral or spiritual harm, where harming a human means to make them a less just or unjust person. It is not clear what it means to harm someone in this sense, other than corrupting them and encouraging them somehow to do unjust acts. But even a very unjust person will not necessarily motivate others to be unjust. The argument seems to rely heavily on the analogical inferences at 3) and 8), and we can be suspicious of the aptness of the analogies. When dogs and horses are harmed, if we mean physically harmed, then of course it follows that they become worse at doing horse-stuff and dogstuff, like being able to run swiftly or track down prey. But when a man is physically harmed, he does not necessarily become worse at practicing justice. A man could lose an arm and still act justly. There are similar problems with the move to 8). It is not clear that justice is an art, like music and horsemanship. It is logically possible that someone who is the subject of a just practice or sentencing can become resentful at those practices and become less just. In conclusion, this argument suffers from at least three problems. It does not establish that the just person is beneficent, it equivocates on the term “harm,” and therefore does not refute Polemarchus’s original claim, and there are serious questions about the aptness of the analogies involved.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Difference between Christians and Nonbelievers
The argument in standard form:
1. Faith is centered on God and soul
2. Believers base their faith on the rewards of virtue and punishment of vice
3. Nonbelievers accept that the human soul dies with the body.
4. Failing to believe in God does not mean that nonbelievers do not believe in moral virtue.
5. Religion is not equal to moral virtues.
6. Irreligious people believe that the human mind is distinct from the body.
7. Religious and irreligious are bound by moral values and divided by supernatural religious
beliefs.
Analysis and Critique
The argument ‘Dedicatory letter to the Sorbonne’ is meant to place a conspicuous
difference between religious and irreligious peop...


Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags