Based on this chapter!

User Generated

xuefvona

Humanities

Description

After reading CHAPTERS 8 and 9, please take the following steps, and make notes to yourself as you go.

1. What is evidence? Why is it important in argumentation?

2. Look at the list of the sources of evidence on page 96, and then working through THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING in chapters 6, 7, and 8, see if you can identify one example of EACH of these types of evidence listed:

intuition

personal experiences

case examples

testimonials

appeals to authorities or experts

personal observations

research studies

analogies

3.

In looking at Klein's use of research studies, identify one research

study in particular that she uses as evidence to support her argument,

and state whether you could challenge her use of the research. Use the

"Clues for Evaluating Research" listed on page 111.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Chapter 9 • How Good Is the Evidence 111 Clues for Evaluating Research Studies Apply the following questions to research findings to determine whether the findings are dependable evidence. 1. What is the quality of the source of the report? Usually, the most dependable is not accepted until it has been reviewed by a series of relevant experts. reports are those published in peer-reviewed journals, those in which a study Usually—but not always the more reputable the source, the better designed the study. So, try to find out all you can about the reputation of the source. 2. Other than the quality of the source, are there other clues included in the communication suggesting the research was well done? For example, does the report detail any special strengths of the research? Unfortunately, most reports of research findings encountered in popular magazines, newspapers, television reports, and blogs fail to provide sufficient detail about the research to warrant our judgment of the research quality. 3. How recently was the research conducted, and are there any reasons to believe that the findings might have changed over time? Many research conclusions ange over time. For example, the causes of depression, crime, or heart dis- e in 1980 may be quite different from those in 2014. ve the study's findings been replicated by other studies? When an association is repeatedly and consistently found in well-designed studies-for example, the link between smoking and cancer-then there is reason to believe it, at least until those who disagree can provide persuasive evidence for their point of view. 5. How selective has the communicator been in choosing studies? For exam- ple, have relevant studies with contradictory results been omitted? Has the researcher selected only those studies that support his point? 6. Is there any evidence of strong-sense critical thinking? Has the speaker or writer showed a critical attitude toward earlier research that was supportive of her point of view? Most conclusions from research need to be qualified because of research limitations. Has the communicator demonstrated a willingness to qualify? 7. Is there any reason for someone to have distorted the research? We need to be wary of situations in which the researchers need to find certain kinds of results. 8. Are conditions in the research artificial and therefore distorted? Always ask, "How similar are the conditions under which the research study was con- ducted to the situation the researcher is generalizing about?" 9. How far can we generalize, given the research sample? Because this is such an important issue, we discuss it in depth in our next section. 10. Are there any biases or distortions in the surveys, questionnaires, ratings, or other measurements that the researcher uses? We need to have confidence that the researcher has measured accurately what she has wanted to measure. The problem of biased surveys and questionnaires is so pervasive in research that we discuss it in more detail in a later section. 96 Chapter 8 • How Good Is the Evidence EXHIBIT 8-1 Major kinds of Evidence ✓ intuition ✓ personal experiences ✓ case examples ✓ testimonials ✓ appeals to authorities or experts personal observations ✓ research studies ✓ analogies “Does an author's evidence provide dependable support for her claim?” Thus, we begin to evaluate evidence by asking, “How good is the evidence?" Always keep in the back of your mind that no evidence will be a slam dunk that gets the job done conclusively. You are looking for better evidence; searching for oltarether wonderful evidence will be frustrating. this chapter and in Chapter 9, we examine the kinds of questions ask of each type of evidence to help us decide its quality. Kinds of ce examined in this chapter are intuition, personal experiences, case uples, testimonials, and appeals to authority. INTUITION AS EVIDENCE "I just sense that Janette is the right girl for me, even though my friends think we're a bad match." "I just have this feeling that Senator Ramirez will surprise the poll- sters and win the election." "I can tell immediately that this slot machine is going to be a winner for me today." When we use intuition to support a claim, we rely on “common sense," or on our "gut feelings," or on hunches. Listen to Jewell celebrating intuition as a source of understanding: Follow your heart Your intuition It will lead you in the right direction Let go of your mind Your Intuition It's easy to find --Jewel, "Intuition" 258 | THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING C ate in depth, and each presents its own particular governing challenges for the next three days , we will zero in on the geoengineering methods the scientists here consider most plausible and promising. These involve vari ous means of injecting particles into the atmosphere in order to reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby reducing the amount of heat that reaches the earth. In geoengineering lingo, this is known as Solar Radiation Man agement (SRM)-since these methods would be attempting to literally "manage the amount of sunlight that reaches earth. There are various possible sun-dimming approaches. The most gleefully sci-fi is space mirrors, which is quickly dismissed out of hand. Another is "cloud brightening": spraying seawater into the sky (whether from fleets of boats or from towers on shore) to create more cloud cover or to make clouds more reflective and longer lasting. The most frequently discussed option involves spraying sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, whether via specially retrofitted airplanes or a very long hose suspended by helium bal- loons (some have even suggested using cannons). The choice to focus exclusively on SRM is somewhat arbitrary given that ocean fertilization experiments have been conducted on several oc- casions, including a heavily reported "rogue" test off the coast of British Columbia in 2012. But SRM is attracting the lion's share of serious scien- tific interest: sun blocking has been the subject of over one hundred peet- reviewed papers, and several high-level research teams are poised to run open-air field trials, which would test the mechanics of these schemes using ships, planes, and very long hoses. If rules and guidelines aren't developed soon (including, as some are suggesting, banning field tests outright), we could end up with a research Wild West. H fe PA ch to te w Spraying sulfate into the stratosphere is often referred to as "the Pinatubo Option," after the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines Most volcanic eruptions send ash and gases into the lower atmosphere where sulfuric acid droplets are formed that simply fall down to earth. (That was the case, for instance, with the 2010 Icelandic volcano that grounded co he many European flights.) But certain, much rarer eruptions Mount Pa ha tubo among them-send high volumes of sulfur dioxide all the way up to When that happens, the sulfuric acid droplets don't fall back down: they remain in the stratosphere, and within weeks can circulate to surround the CC the stratosphere. SC DIMMING THE SUN 1 257 governed? What rules should researchers follow? What bodies, if any, will regulate these experiments? National governments? The United Nations? What constitutes "good governance" of geoengineering? To answer these questions and others, the society has teamed up with two cosponsors for the retreat: the World Academy of Sciences based in Italy, which focuses on promoting scientific opportunities in the developing world, and the Environmental Defense Fund, which has described geoengineering as a ming.com to ives, 2008 les, 1895 "bridging tool” (much as it has described natural gas). That makes this conference both the most international gathering about geoengineering to date, and the first time a major green group has publicly offered its blessing the exploration of radical interventions into the earth's climate system as a response to global warming. The venue for this futuristic discussion is an immaculately restored sixty-two-room redbrick Georgian mansion called Chicheley Hall, once a set in a BBC production of Pride and Prejudice, and the Royal Society's newly acquired retreat center. The effect is wildly anachronistic: the es- tate's sprawling bright green lawns, framed by elaborately sculpted hedges, seem to cry out for women in corseted silk gowns and parasols discussing their suitors-not disheveled scientists discussing a parasol for the planet. And yet geoengineering has always had a distinctly retro quality, not quite steampunk, but it definitely harkens back to more confident times, when taking control over the weather seemed like the next exciting frontier of scientific innovation—not a last-ditch attempt to save ourselves from in- cineration. After dinner, consumed under towering oil paintings of plump-faced men in silver wigs, the delegates are invited to the wood-paneled library. bout gever a and torals among t scientit reduction There, about thirty scientists, lawyers, environmentalists, and policy wonks gather for the opening “technical briefing" on the different geoengineering an B. In to devot Ods might schemes under consideration. A Royal Society scientist takes us through a slide show that includes “fertilizing” oceans with iron to pull carbon out of Cale ene maybe vent of the atmosphere; covering deserts with vast white sheets in order to reflect sunlight back to space; and building fleets of machines like the ones com- for Richard Branson's Earth Challenge that would suck carbon out peting of the air. The scientist explains that there are too many such schemes to evalu- us: How nent 8 gover regula What quest DIMMING THE SUN che re The Solution to Pollution Is ... Pollution? on pi Envir "brid confe date, "Geoengineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming com- cerns for just a few billion dollars a year.” to th as a r T -Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 2008- sixty- a set newly tate's "Our science is a drop, our ignorance a sea." -William James, 18952 seem their And steam It's March 2011 and I have just arrived at a three-day retreat about gever gineering in the Buckinghamshire countryside, about an hour and a ba? northwest of London. The meeting has been convened by the Royal Soc ety, Britain's legendary academy of science, which has counted among is takin: scient cinera fellows Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and Stephen Hawking. А men There gathe scher slide In recent years, the society has become the most prominent scientit organization to argue that, given the lack of progress on emission reduction the time has come for governments to prepare a technological Plan B. Ini report published in 2009, it called upon the British government to dever significant resources to researching which geoengineering methods maha prove most effective. Two years later it declared that planetary-scale en neering interventions that would block a portion of the sun's rays "mark the only option for reducing global temperatures quickly in the event of a narrow focus: How should research into geoengineering, as well as eventual deployment, the a sunlig petin of the TH k climate emergency." The retreat in Buckinghamshire has a
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.

1. What is evidence? Why is it important in argumentation?
Evidence are facts that are presented to support a claim and they are indisputable. It is important
that evidence is given in an argument so that the intended audience can be convinced of the
position or accept the logic presented.
2. Look at the list of the sources of evidence on page 96, and then working through THIS
CHANGES EVERYTHING in chapters 6, 7, and 8, see if you can identify one example
of EACH of these types of evidence listed:


Intuition: The author feels that in participating in geoengineering experiments, the results
could be far much worse due to what she calls a “designer world” after seeing the
sculptured trees outside Chicheley...


Anonymous
Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags