1: The aim of argument that should have been deployed is inquiry. It makes most sense as it is a dialogue and the general nature of the argument is that they are trying to seek truth or figure out what is right/moral.
2: They violated the use of inquiry by not just trying to ask questions and taking stabs at what the best solution is, but they were eventually convincing the audience that the death tax is a bad idea.
3: They violate each criteria of responsible reasoning by…
Being well informed: They didn’t offer much reliable objective information about the issue
Self critical and open to constructive critiscm from others: They were not critical of their own answers and probably would not have listened to others’ opinions
Try to understand other point of views: They did not really even inquire about other point of views that may be out there
Know their arguments’ contexts: Didn’t have concsiousness of how their own situations effected how they see it
4: Their misuse of reasoning and not having an aim of argument led to their being no conclusion
5: Rembering the aims of argument and the criteria for responsible reasoning was essential for answering that question because it gave explicit answers for the reason of the outcome which was that there was no conclusion
A major gain for college sports Question 1: Her proposal could be slightly controversial because administrations’ willingness to deal with it depends on them admitting the deficiencies in how college athletes are treated and how it is unfair that they are not offered the same opportunities as music and art students. College athletes and all people who want to have a profession in sports would all probaby agree with her. The administration would disagree most strongly because they are the ones who will have to make the change and find ways to offer that degree and to make changes financially for it, as well as admitting their denial of opportunities for people passionate in sports.
Kara's Blog 