Final Exam Articles

Watching TV Makes You Smarter
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html

Twilight of the books
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/12/24/071224crat_atlarge_crain

The Neuroscience of Your Brain on Fiction
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-neuroscience-of-your-brain-on-fiction.html

Does your social class determine your online social network?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-13/tech/social.networking.class_1_myspace-users-facebook-users-social-networking-site?_s=PM:TECH

Mind Over Mass Media
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11Pinker.html

Is there Hope for the American Marriage?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1908434,00.html

The Growing Backlash Against Overparenting
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940697,00.html

Essay #3 Ideas

Here, at long last, is the list of essay ideas for essay #3. Obviously, you don't need to write on these topics--they are just meant to get you thinking and help you generate ideas.

Essay #3 Topic Ideas

• Raising the debt ceiling
• Violence in the media
• Human trafficking
• Flat tax
• Better nutrition as cure for disease
• Pay for college athletes
• Poverty in the U.S.
• Violent video games
• Divorce in America
• Disciplining children
• Physician-assisted suicide
• Utah’s alcohol laws
• Children’s exposure to violence: parent vs. media responsibility
• Public vs. private health care
• Changing a 4-year degree to a 3-year degree
• Texting while driving
• Eliminating senior year in Utah high schools
• Childhood obesity
• Causes of climate change
• Alternative fuels
• Video game addiction
• America’s oil dependence
• Daylight savings time: should it be eliminated?
• Is drug testing worth it?
• Cell phones: a benefit or a hazard?
• Effects of computer use on children
• Are parents and coaches pushing young children too hard?
• Capital punishment
• Should undocumented students be allowed to pay resident tuition in the state where they have grown up?
• Climate change
• Public education vs. homeschooling
• Is texting affecting our ability to communicate effectively?
• Bullying
• Divorce in the U.S.
• Homelessness and hunger in the U.S.
• Benefits of early college
• Online classes vs. face-to-face
• Growing problem of obesity in the U.S.
• Positive vs. negative effects of social networking
• Are prisoners given too many comforts?
• Health effects of diet colas
• Debate over online universities
• Body image issues for women
• The risks of nuclear energy
• Effects of college sports on academics
• For-profit universities
• Sex education in schools
• Genetic engineering of food

Why Read Fairytales?

“If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.”
― Albert Einstein

Did any of you grow up reading fairy tales? What was your first exposure to the story of Cinderella, or fairy tales in general? Did you read it yourself in a book? Was it read to you by a parent or teacher? Did you see it in a film, or on television?
Is it actually important to read fairy/folk tales? Even in college?

Logical Fallacies Handout

Logical Fallacies_________________________________

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

Slippery slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.

In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.

In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than her/his opinions or arguments. Example:

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.

In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.

In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families?

In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

In this example the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.

Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities.

That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.

In this example the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate.

______________________________________________________________________________

Copyright ©1995-2010 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use. Please report any technical problems you encounter.

Persuasive Articles

Okay, I know this is kind of late to be posting these, but I had enough requests for help finding articles that I figured everyone could benefit from looking through these. Also, as you check out the articles, skim over other articles on the same websites or by the same authors--you may find others that work well, too. Here are four, and there are more where these come from.

http://www.zcommunications.org/growing-gulf-between-rich-and-rest-of-us-by-holly-sklar

http://motherjones.com/politics/2003/03/against-wal-mart

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0501/campos042301.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html

"Ban on Fast Food TV Advertising"

Here's the link to the article for Friday: "Ban on Fast Food TV Advertising"
And if you can't access the link, here's the full text of the article:

Ban On Fast Food TV Advertising Would Reverse Childhood Obesity Trends, Study Shows

ScienceDaily (Nov. 19, 2008) — A ban on fast food advertisements in the United States could reduce the number of overweight children by as much as 18 percent, according to a new study being published this month in the Journal of Law and Economics. The study also reports that eliminating the tax deductibility associated with television advertising would result in a reduction of childhood obesity, though in smaller numbers.

The study was conducted by researchers from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) with funding from the National Institutes of Health. NBER economists Shin-Yi Chou of Lehigh University, Inas Rashad of Georgia State University, and Michael Grossman of City University of New York Graduate Center co-authored the paper, which measures the number of hours of fast food television advertising messages viewed by children on a weekly basis.

The authors found that a ban on fast food television advertisements during children's programming would reduce the number of overweight children ages 3-11 by 18 percent, while also lowering the number of overweight adolescents ages 12-18 by 14 percent. The effect is more pronounced for males than females.

Though a ban would be effective, the authors also question whether such a high degree of government involvement—and the costs of implementing such policies—is a practical option. Should the U.S. pursue that path, they would follow Sweden, Norway and Finland as the only countries to have banned commercial sponsorship of children's programs.

"We have known for some time that childhood obesity has gripped our culture, but little empirical research has been done that identifies television advertising as a possible cause," says Chou, the Frank L. Magee Distinguished Professor at Lehigh's College of Business and Economics. "Hopefully, this line of research can lead to a serious discussion about the type of policies that can curb America's obesity epidemic."

The study also found that the elimination of tax deductibility tied to advertising would similarly produce declines in childhood obesity, albeit at a smaller rate of 5-7 percent. Advertising is considered a business expense and, as such, it can be used to reduce a company's taxable income. The authors deduce that, since the corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, the elimination of the tax deductibility of food advertising costs would be equivalent to increasing the price of advertising by 54 percent.

Such an action would consequently result in the reduction of fast food advertising messages by 40 percent for children, and 33 percent for adolescents.

The study—the largest of its kind to directly tie childhood obesity to fast food advertising on American television—is based on the viewing habits of nearly 13,000 children using data from the 1979 Child-Young Adult National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, both issued by the U.S. Department of Labor.

A 2006 report issued by the Institute of Medicine indicated there is compelling evidence linking food advertising on television and increased childhood obesity. "Some members of the committee that wrote the report recommended congressional regulation of television food advertisements aimed at children, but the report also said that the final link that would definitively prove that children had become fatter by watching food commercials aimed at them cannot be made," says Grossman.

"Our study provides evidence of that link," he says.

The Centers for Disease Control estimate that, between 1970 and 1999, the percentage of overweight children ages 6-11 more than tripled to 13 percent. Adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19 also saw a significant increase, reaching 14 percent.

Research indicates that there is an 80 percent chance an overweight adolescent will be an obese adult and that over 300,000 deaths can be attributed to obesity and weight in the United States every year.

The End of the Obedience Readings!

Now that we've finished our obedience readings, I have a few final questions for you. What did Asch, McEwan, and Ross & Nisbett add to our knowledge about obedience to authority and to social pressure? In one of the reading responses I read this weekend, one student mentioned that she has been more conscious of the way she responds to pressure from peers and authorities since reading these essays. Have any of you found yourselves thinking about or responding to pressure differently? In what ways has it affected you?

Keep up the comments and questions!