Immunology Question

User Generated

nevanp

Health Medical

West Coast University

Description

Instructions:

The Signature Assignment for this course combines all the concepts you have explored in this term. In this assignment, you will choose one of the TED Talks below and form a response based on the provided guidance using the provided template on attachments. As you respond to the questions, you will be expected to connect the concepts covered in this course to the information in your chosen video.

As you develop your Signature Assignment, it is a mandatory requirement to support your logic with in-text citations from our textbook. These citations are essential for substantiating your claims and demonstrating your understanding of the course concepts.


Please ensure that you use the template and follow APA format for your paper, including a title page, in-text citations, and a reference page. Incorrect or missing citations may impact your grade, so be diligent in citing the textbook appropriately.

Please choose ONE of the following TED Talks to respond to

For each number below, complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the subject matter of the class.

    1. The Argument and Syllogism: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
      1. Summarize the overall argument of the video in your own words. Be sure to include details and the main points the speaker used to make the argument.
      2. Identify the three parts of the syllogism the speaker uses to make the overall argument:
        • Major Premise
        • Minor Premise
        • Conclusion
    2. Testing the Syllogism: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
      1. Based upon the syllogism (your answer to Part 1. B), does this argument demonstrate inductive or deductive reasoning? Provide support for your choice. Be sure to only choose deductive OR inductive; you cannot choose both or neither.
      2. If the argument is deductive, test your syllogism (your answers to Part 1. B) in terms of logical validity and soundness. Be sure to not only tell if the syllogism is valid and sound but also show how/how not or why/why not. If the argument is inductive, test your syllogism (your answers from Part 1. B) in terms of being a stronger or weaker inductive argument. Be sure to not only tell if the syllogism is stronger or weaker but also show how or why.
    3. Rhetorical Appeals: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
      1. Identify examples of all three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos) that you noticed in this video and what information from the video has led you to your choices. Be sure to select specific words, phrases, or ideas and explain their connections to each type of appeal. Also, indicate what effect the use of these appeals has on the persuasiveness of the argument.
    4. Rhetorical Devices and Logical Fallacies: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
      1. Identify at least one specific rhetorical device and one specific logical fallacy in the way this topic is presented. Be sure to define the rhetorical device and fallacy and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether you think the use of each device and fallacy was deliberate or not and assess the effect that each one has on the argument.
      2. NOTE: Remember, ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical appeals, NOT devices, so they are not what is being asked here. This is asking about rhetorical devices.
    5. Moral Reasoning: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
      A. Which specific kind of moral reasoning is demonstrated in your topic? Briefly elaborate on why you chose the one you did. Be sure to define the specific kind of moral reasoning you chose and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether the use of this kind of moral reasoning was deliberate and what effect it has on the persuasiveness of the argument.
    6. Reaction and Reflection: Offer your position on the argument presented in the video you selected. Using your critical thinking skills, explain whether the speaker's argument was effective or ineffective, and why.
    7. Conclusion: What are the positive implications and negative consequences for the critical reasoning concepts that were used throughout your paper and in the video?

When completing this assignment, please keep the following in mind:

  • Use the provided template.
  • First and third person (I, we, her, him, they) are fine for this assignment, but do not use second person (you, your).
  • Include a title page, indicating which topic you chose.
  • Adhere to basic APA formatting, including:
    • 12-point Times New Roman font
    • Double-spaced text
    • 1-inch margins throughout
  • Support your logic with in-text citations from our textbook.
  • Cite any outside sources that you used to support your ideas in proper APA format with in-text citations and references.
  • Be sure to review the associated rubric for more guidance on the content that your response is expected to contain.

    Please make sure it's carefully completed with all the instructions and format, font size and choose one of the TED talk and work on it.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1 Title of Video You Analyzed Your Name Here West Coast University PHIL 341: Critical Reasoning Faculty Name The Date Here 2 Week 8 Signature Assignment Introduction Begin by providing a brief introduction that specifies the TedTalk you selected and general overview of the video. In your paper you will want to reference concepts and information from our textbook. Use the following format should follow the format (Moore & Parker, 2021) for paraphrasing and (Moore & Parker, 2021, p. #) for direct quotes. When referencing class videos, use (Instructor name, n.d.) for paraphrasing, and when quoting from a video, include the specific time stamp where the information can be located, such as (Instructor name, n.d., 1:21). If there is no timeline provided on a video, it is best to paraphrase rather than quote. In APA format, if you are citing sources by the same author and with the same publication year, you differentiate them by adding lowercase letters (a, b, c, etc.) after the publication year within the in-text citations. This allows you to distinguish between the sources in your text and match them with the corresponding full citations in your reference list. For example: - (Author, Yeara) - (Author, Yearb) Make sure to list these sources alphabetically in your reference list, organized by the lowercase letter assigned. 3 The Argument and Syllogism Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Summarize the overall argument of the video in your own words. Be sure to include details and the main points the speaker used to make the argument. Identify the three parts of the syllogism the speaker uses to make the overall argument: • Major Premise: Write the major premise in one to two sentences. A major premise is the main idea of an argument. It's the big, general statement at the beginning that sets the stage for the whole discussion. From there, more specific details are shared, leading to a final conclusion. Think of the major premise as an overarching statement that provides the context for the argument, guiding the development of the rest of the points and ideas. • Minor Premise: Write the minor premise in one to two sentences. The minor premise is often a specific example that helps support the main idea in an argument. It adds details that show how the big idea applies to a particular situation. By giving specific examples and details, the minor premise helps strengthen the overall argument. It works together with the major premise to build a logical case that leads to a final conclusion. • Conclusion: Write a conclusion in one to two sentences. A conclusion is the outcome of a logical argument derived from the premises presented. It is the final statement based on the evidence in the major and minor premises. 4 Testing the Syllogism Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Based on the syllogism presented in Part 1 B, is this argument employing inductive or deductive reasoning? Support your choice with evidence. If the argument is deductive, analyze your syllogism from Part 1 B in terms of logical validity and soundness. Provide an evaluation that not only determines if the syllogism is both valid and sound, but also explains the reasoning behind your decision. If the argument utilizes an inductive approach, evaluate your syllogism from Part 1 B based on its strength as an inductive argument. Provide a critique that shows whether the syllogism is stronger or weaker, and clarify the rationale for your assessment. Rhetorical Appeals Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Identify examples of all three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos) that you noticed in this video and what information from the video has led you to your choices. Be sure to select specific words, phrases, or ideas and explain their connections to each type of appeal. Also, indicate what effect the use of these appeals has on the persuasiveness of the argument. Rhetorical Devices Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Identify at least one specific rhetorical device from our textbook that was found in the video you selected. Be sure define the rhetorical 5 device and demonstrate how o why the source employs them. REMEMBER that ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical appeals, NOT devices. This is asking about rhetorical devices. Logical Fallacies Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Identify at least one specific logical fallacy from our textbook that was found in the video you selected. Be sure to define the fallacy and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether you think the use of the logical fallacy was deliberate or not and assess the effect that each one has on the argument. Moral Reasoning Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated. Which specific kind of moral reasoning is demonstrated in your topic? Choose from the following: Utilitarianism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Moral Relativism, or Cultural Relativism. Information about these ethical perspectives in located in Chapter 12 and you can also find more information in the study guide located in the Doc Sharing link under Modules. Briefly elaborate on why you chose the one you did. Be sure to define the specific kind of moral reasoning you chose from the list above and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether the use of this kind of moral reasoning was deliberate and what effect it has on the persuasiveness of the argument. 6 Reaction and Reflection Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph that offers your position on the argument presented in the video you selected. Using your critical thinking skills to explain whether the speaker's argument was effective or ineffective and why. Conclusion Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph that explores the positive implications and negative consequences of the critical reasoning concepts utilized in both your paper and the video. This paragraph should be comprehensive enough to showcase how these concepts were applied and their impacts. This is the conclusion to your paper and should not include any new materials or concepts. 7 References Moore, B.N., & Parker, R. (2021). Critical thinking (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Speaker's Last Name, First Initial. (date of TED Talk). Title of TED Talk [Video]. TED Conferences. URL Instructor last name, first initial (N.D.) Week # and Video name in Canvas. [Video]. Canvas@WCU. https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/ References should be listed in alphabetical order APA 7 is different from APA 6. Here is a website covering some key differences: https://www.scribbr.com/apa-style/apa-seventh-edition-changes/.
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

Why Museums are Returning Cultural Treasures
Your Name Here
West Coast University
PHIL 341: Critical Reasoning
Faculty Name
The Date Here

2
Week 8 Signature Assignment

Introduction

In the TED talk “Why Museums are Returning Cultural Treasures,” archaeologist and
museum curator Chip Colwell discusses the rights of possession of cultural items and a specific
focus on Native American artifacts. This discussion explores the speaker's logical appeal, ethos,
pathos, and logos, as well as the moral perspective that supports a new way of designing
museums (Moore & Parker, 2021). From his own life and work, Colwell provides a strong
argument for how best to protect the past while also honoring cultures.

The Argument and Syllogism

Colwell also insists that museums need to shift from being storage facilities of cultural
resources to centers involved in the rightful return of sacred items to living cultures. He backs
this up with specifics such as the Zuni War Gods and discusses how he has changed from the
typical curator to a voice for repatriation. In order to support his argument, the speaker
presents the historical background of museum acquisition, the sacredness of the artifacts to the
community, and the benefits of repatriation. His story contains historical oppression, current
problems, and potential future museum development.


Major Premise: Sacred cultural properties are property of and for the community; they
were produced for, not simply, artifacts designed to be displayed in a museum since
their cultural and spiritual value is far beyond the aesthetic or historical.

3


Minor Premise: The Zuni War Gods are deities integral to the Zuni religious traditions
and survival, made during prescribed processes for specific functions for religious
events.



Conclusion: The War Gods and similar sacred objects should be repatriated to their
places of origin, but museums should continue their educative functions through their
enormous stock.

Testing the Syllogism

This is because the argument is grounded on the general principle of cultural artifacts to
specific War Gods and similar items. The problem with the syllogism is that it is logically valid
since, in accepting the premises, the conclusion is inescapable through the right logical design.
However, its soundness relies on the validity of the major premise that the author makes about
the ownership and use of sacred objects, which some museum officials deny, especially those
from Europe. The argumentation is logically sound, though its credibility is an open question
due to the current dispute over cultural property rights and the role of institutions.

Rhetorical Appeals

Colwell uses all three elements of rhetoric in his presentation. He asserts his authority
for ethos but admits to being an archaeologist and a curator while admitting that the field has a
less-than-perfect record. He further strengthens his ethical appeal by agreeing to disagree with
conventional museum working norms. His pathos appears in emotional descriptions of Octavius
Seowtewa's reaction to seeing displaced War Gods: Ahayuda is very far, and it pains me. They

4
all belong together. It is like having a member of a family who is absent from a family reunion.
In logos, he uses statistics by stating that, while museums in the USA have returned 'more than
one million artifacts and 50,000 sets of Native American skeletons, ' they still retain 99.999% of
their collections, showing that repatriation does not decrease the prominence of museums.

Rhetorical Devices

One of the most evident appeals is the use of analogy, especially when Colwell describes
the War Gods as 'a relative who is not present at the family gathering.' This device fills the gap
of cross-cultural interpretation by associating sacred artifacts with everyday experiences of
kinship and grief. To audiences unaware of the Native American culture and religion, the
metaphor is a good way of explaining the emotional and cultural importance of these relics.

Logical Fallacies

Ironically, the last one, an appeal to emotion, is a fallacy that the speaker uses when he
says that 'the War Gods are our family members' when, in fact, it invokes appeals to emotions
rather than a logical reaction. This seems rather intentional and is probably done to aid nonNative audiences in recognizing these objects' great spiritual importance for the Zuni people. As
much as the emotional appeal is fallacious, it is significantly useful to the speaker in creating an
understanding between the two cultures.

Moral Reasoning

5
The argument is mainly based on virtue ethics since the paper mainly concerns the
ethical duties of museums as cultural organizations. Unlike utilitarianism and deontology,
Colwell focuses on the right way of responsible respect and cultural acknowledgment. This
seems purposeful and is most helpful to this argument by invoking institutional thought and
ethical progress. His concentration on character and responsibility suits virtue ethics since it
concentrates on ethical behavior and the growth of an ethical personality.

Reaction and Reflection

In the global context, the speaker ensures that his/her payer validates the strengths and
weaknesses of the opponent's claims, making his/her argument highly persuasive. Accepting
museums' educational and cultural roles, Colwell convincingly explains why some objects are
more than just cultural assets. The fact that he can personally describe his growth as a curator
and provide concrete examples of repatriation makes it all the more persuasive. Possible
objections are dealt with, and ways in which museums can repatriate native artifacts while also
preserving effective collections that serve the public's educational and aesthetic goals are
demons...

Related Tags