Essay over sweatshops with 4 topics to choose from (in files) follows REBUTTAL outline (in files) NO WORD COUNT

Anonymous
timer Asked: Jul 2nd, 2018
account_balance_wallet $15

Question description

Hey! This essay is potentially easy but I started a new job and I'm overbooking my own brain, so I need help :) I want to start off by staying PLEASE MAKE IT ORIGINAL I will be checking for plagiarizing and will get a refund if any is found. You can CITE your work and create a work cited page for it, I will attach links to articles my own professor gave me to use but you can look up things yourself, just cite it. There is not a word count but just make the essay to the extent where it fully explains one of the four topics (in files). I will review it and work with you with more pay if the job is well done. In the files I have attached the REBUTTAL outline and powerpoint that I MUST follow (not MLA format) and the four topics along with the links to research for the essay right here. Thank you so much you are a life saver!

Where Sweatshops Are a DreamLinks to an external site.

Sweatshops ForeverLinks to an external site.

My Life as a Sweatshop WorkerLinks to an external site.

Two Cheers for SweatShopsLinks to an external site.

Essay over sweatshops with 4 topics to choose from (in files) follows REBUTTAL outline (in files) NO WORD COUNT
topics.png
Refutation clashing with your opponent’s arguments and evidence Advocacy versus Refutation Advocacy: involves advancing your own case, e.g. what you are for Refutation: involves indicting your opponent’s arguments, evidence, and reasoning, e.g., what you are against – also known as the “burden of clash” or “burden of rebuttal” Competent arguers can build a cogent case of their own or refute their opponent’s position. The process of refutation Advocate 1 Advocate 2 Advocate 1 – Initiates an – Refutes the position – Rebuts the argument of Advocate 1 indictments of Advocate 2 – Has the burden of – Has the burden of proof clash – Rebuilds his or her own case – Must establish a – Must refute the core prima facie case arguments offered – Extends his or her by Advocate 1 own position – Policy case: ill, blame, cure, – Needn’t refute every – Counters any advantages argument made by alternative Advocate 1 position offered – Value case: by Advocate 1 establishment of – May, but is not criteria, application required, to offer an of criteria alternative position Illustration of refutation Pro: The U.S. shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. the U.N. inspections were working. France was right, there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Con: But France and the rest of the U.N thought Iraq had WMD. France didn’t agree on the need to invade, but France did agree that Iraq was hiding weapons from the U.N. inspectors John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and all the other key Democratic leaders voted for the war too Pro: If perceptions are what count, France’s perception was that military force should have been the last resort, and the U.S. should not have acted unilaterally. France’s perception was that the U.N. inspectors should be allowed to finish their work Democrats who voted for the invasion didn’t know the White House was “cherry picking” the intelligence Con: The U.S. didn’t act unilaterally, Britain, Spain, Italy, and a number of other countries were part of the “coalition of the willing.” The real reason France opposed military action was because it had lucrative oil contracts with Iraq Democrats voted for the war for political reasons; they didn’t want to look weak on national security Illustration of refutation Pro: Con: Con: Pro: Gays should be Kids need a two Tax incentives Laws don’t prevent allowed to adopt parent family, with a would still help, and single, straight parents children because mother and a father a two-parent, from adopting now, so there is a shortage of figure mother-father lots of kids are raised heterosexual household is still by an adoptive mother adoptive parents. the ideal situation. More measures or father. should be taken to Permanent adoption encourage adoptions Because children is far better in terms by heterosexuals, are so vulnerable, Gays are more willing of child development such as tax incentives. the state has a to adopt children with and family stability compelling interest problems (such as HIV than temporary in looking out for Gays are less positive kids) foster care their safety and well desirable as parents, being they can’t legally Gays raised in gay marry, and studies households are no claiming kids of gays aren’t harmed are more likely to turn out based on small gay. Gays aren’t child samples and molesters, and far more conducted by abuse occurs in foster researchers with an care anyway agenda skills required for effective refutation use active listening: use paraphrasing and perception checking to verify your opponent’s point of view – “So your position is…am I right?” – “Are you saying that…?” avoid selective listening, distortion, and appealing to extremes – “Wrong! And here’s why…” – “You are so misguided…” demonstrate respect and tolerance – avoid ad hominems, focus on the issues, acknowledge good arguments when they are made – “Hmm. That’s a good point. I hadn’t thought about it that way.” strategies for effective refutation argue that your opponent hasn’t met his/her burden of proof (lack of a prima facie case, lack of evidence) – example: an ad for a miracle diet offers testimonials as proof, but fails to provide a controlled clinical study to prove the diet really works. dispute the relevance of the claim (“that’s not the issue,” show your opponent has asked the wrong question, or raised the wrong issue) – example: Is Barack Obama “Black” enough to be president? – example: Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? (Versus Would the world be better off without George W. Bush? Did toppling Saddam reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on the U.S.?) – example: What jobs pays the most? (Versus what jobs are the most prestigious or fulfilling? What job would make you enjoy going to work each day?) Employ standard tests of evidence employ any of the standard tests of evidence (source qualifications, source bias, recency, suppressed evidence, unknowable statistics, etc.) – example of suppressed evidence: an advertisement claims a particular car has more horsepower and 0-60 speed, but fails to mention it also does worse in crash tests, gets lower mpg, and has worse reliability. – example of source bias: pharmaceutical companies tend to selectively publish only the findings that favor their drugs. more strategies of refutation offer counter-evidence of your own, preferably from more qualified, more recent sources – example: CNN's Lou Dobbs, regularly uses a figure of "20 million" when discussing the number of illegal aliens on his broadcast "Lou Dobbs Tonight.“ However, the PEW Hispanic Center, a more neutral objective source places the number at 11 million. – example: Clinton claimed on NBC’s Today show that there were 13 gun-related fatalities among children every day. But that number only applies if 20 year olds are counted as “children.” Only 1.7 kids ages 1-14 are killed per day by guns, according to National Center for Health Statistics, 1997. Strategies of refutation identify fallacies in reasoning committed by your opponent (faulty analogy, faulty cause, faulty sign, etc.) – example: either-or fallacy: Bush “either your for America or you’re for the terrorists” – example: equivocation: “We should legalize marijuana. Thomas Jefferson grew hemp on his plantation.” More strategies of refutation offer counter-reasoning of your own (counter-examples, negative signs, competing analogies) attack any of the stock issues for policy, value, – Stock issues for policy disputes • Ill/significance or harm • Blame/inherency or cause of the harm • Cure/solvency, plan or solution – Stock issues for value disputes • Value criteria • Application of value criteria still more strategies of refutation expose any inconsistencies or contradictions in your opponent’s position – example: Bush has blocked prescription drug imports from Canada over safety concerns, but he said the U.S. could rely on Canada for more flu vaccine. – example: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,'' Kerry said regarding the Bush administration's request for more funding for the Iraq operation. More strategies for refutation employ the strategy of reductio ad absurdum, e.g., taking an argument to its logical conclusion (but avoid appealing to extremes) – example: if cloning stem cells to treat diabetes, Alzheimer’s or other illnesses is “unnatural” and violates “God’s will,” couldn’t one say the same for polio vaccine or almost any form of medicine? use the strategy of “turning the tables,” by showing the situation is the opposite of what your opponent claims – example: The invasion of Iraq has made Americans less safe by spawning thousands of Islamic militants who are intent on killing Americans and becoming martyrs. even more strategies of refutation use a two-sided, refutative approach when 3rd parties will arbitrate the dispute use inoculation theory (forewarning) when 3rd parties will be exposed to the arguments fight fire with fire, by refuting arguments with like reasoning (examples with counter examples, signs with negative signs, etc.) – example: your opponent uses an abortion analogy to describe stem cell research, because both involve the destruction of human life. You counter by saying a better analogy is organ donations—stem cells that would otherwise be discarded or destroyed are used to save lives. avoid “straw man” arguments, resist the temptation to “beat up” on weak, tangential arguments. Concentrate instead on your opponent’s best arguments – example: an opponent of capital punishment says hanging and firing squads violate the 8th amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment. Yet, most states have adopted lethal injection as a form of execution.
I. Introduction a. Identify the work being criticized b. Present thesis – argument about the work c. Preview your argument – what are the steps you will take to prove your argument II. Summary/Evaluation of the work a. Does not need to be comprehensive – present only what the reader needs to know to understand your argument. b. Where does the argument go wrong (look back at the Rebuttal Powerpoint)? III. Your argument a. Your argument will likely involve a number of sub-arguments –mini-theses you prove to prove your larger argument true. For example, if your thesis was that the author’s presumption that the world will soon face a “clash of civilizations” is flawed because he inadequately specifies his key concept, civilizations, you might prove this by: i. Noting competing definitions of civilizations ii. Identifying how his examples do not meet the example of civilizations iii. Argue that civilization is so broad and non-specific that it is not useful b. This should be the bulk of the paper – I want to read your argument about the work, not a summary. IV. Conclusion a. Reflect on how you have proven your argument. b. Point out the importance of your argument c. Note potential avenues for additional research or analysis

Tutor Answer

Jesca
School: Carnegie Mellon University

...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Outstanding Job!!!!

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors