Discuss “Schools should start later in the morning. “

 

Write a persuasive essay consist of just 500-600 words, about ” schools should start later in the morning “

 

The essay should be 5 paragraphs

 

* first paragraph : Introduction Includes ( hook, background, thesis )

* second, third, and fourth paragraph : body’s. each body includes:

 

1/  topic sentence

2/ major support (1)

+ miner ( example or details for major support 1 )

3/ major support (2)

+ miner ( example or details for major support 2 )

4/ Conclusion

 

* fifth paragraph : Conclusion

 

((((((((((( please make it simple and choose basic words as a beginner student ))))))))))

 

. . Here are some pointers:

 

* Choose a controversial topic. Do not choose a fact or something based on personal taste.

* Take a position. Do not argue both positions. Only try to convince me of your position (your opinion).

Example: If your topic is teachers accepting late homework, then you will choose to persuade the audience why teachers SHOULD accept late homework OR why teachers SHOULDN’T accept late homework. Not both.

* Each body paragraph should describe 1 reason to support your position. State the reason in the topic sentence.

* Remember your audience. Choose the reasons that will persuade the people you want to convince.

Example: If your position is that teachers SHOULD accept late homework, you need to give 3 reasons that will convince teachers.

Good explanations are often simple, yet they can explain a lot. Explain how the story of Dr. Snow’s “ghost map” drawing demonstrates this.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_johnson_tours_the_ghost_map

6.2 answers

  • According to the “Answering the Three Questions” video, in what way was the “miasmas” (bad smells) explanation inconsistent?
  • How was Dr. Snow able to test his proposed explanation?
  • Explain how Dr. Snow was able to demonstrate that he wasn’t confusing correlation with causation.
  • Good explanations are often simple, yet they can explain a lot. Explain how the story of Dr. Snow’s “ghost map” drawing demonstrates this.
  • Steven Johnson argues that the story of the cholera epidemic and Dr. Snow’s map is “fundamentally optimistic.” Explain whether or not you agree and why.

 

 

https://youtu.be/KoyDmwNwIKQ

6.4 answers

  • One of the nurses says, “I’m a nurse, and I know this for a fact.” Explain how this comment could be used to illustrate the fallacy of unqualified authority.
  • Point 5 in the Baloney Detection Kit asks whether anyone has tried to disprove this claim. What does the video suggest regarding this point?
  • Point 6 in the Baloney Detection Kit asks where the preponderance of evidence seems to point. While this video depicts conflicting claims, it suggests that most of the evidence supports which side?
  • In the flashback to the 1984 news report, the newscaster references a study conducted by a Florida researcher that demonstrated that more murders were committed during a full moon; Shermer then reveals that the study proved to be flawed. Using one of the elements of good vs. bad science detailed above, offer a theory as to what might have gone wrong in this scientific study.

Determine the advantages and disadvantages of broadcasting the SSID. Explain whether you would broadcast your SSID.

The access point (AP) may be configured to broadcast or not to broadcast the SSID (Service Set Identifier). Determine the advantages and disadvantages of broadcasting the SSID. Explain whether you would broadcast your SSID.

Propose the best practices for selecting a vendor to provide a SSO (Single Sign-On) implementation. Select the practice that you consider to be the most important and explain why.

From the e-Activity, Go to e-Week’s Website and read “Health Care Data Breaches Increase by 32 Percent: Ponemon Report”, located at http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Health-Care-IT/Health-Care-Data-Breaches-Increase-by-32-Percent-Ponemon-Report-233543/ suggest the methods that could be used to protect health care data. Explain whether you believe health care should or shouldn’t be accessible via mobile devices, and why or why not.

Some mobile device OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) have built the ability to remotely wipe out all the data stored in the mobile device in the event that the device is stolen or lost. Determine whether this is an effective strategy. Explain why or why not.

Explain what early childhood professionals can do to respond sensitively to the needs and challenges of specific families and their children with special needs.

Review the “four powerful arguments for viewing active family involvement as the cornerstone of relevant and longitudinal educational planning” on pages 91–92 in your course text. Next, adopt the perspective of a parent of a young child with special needs. In your own words, explain why each point is vital to developing an effective plan for the successful education of your child.

To ensure effective partnerships with children’s families, all professionals who work with those families must recognize and respect individual family practices and beliefs, as well as strive to eliminate attitudes and behaviors that impede family involvement. Review “Professional Roadblocks to Communication” on pages 104–105 in your text. Choose one roadblock of particular interest to you. Then explain how you would apply the principles of effective communication on pages 102–104 to overcome this roadblock.

Describe three insights with regard to working with culturally and linguistically diverse families of children with special needs that you have become aware of through your readings this week. Explain what early childhood professionals can do to respond sensitively to the needs and challenges of specific families and their children with special needs.

Literature homework help

Discuss the basics of Just-in-Time using an example from the industry.

Just-in-Time came to the United States as an adaptation of the Toyota Production System. When it first came to the United States, it was deemed to be Zero Inventories, although Taiichi Ohno actually called the process “Lean.”

 

Discuss the basics of Just-in-Time using an example from the industry. Further, justify whether Just-in-Time is an inventory control policy or a process improvement methodology. Also, examine if it can be both.

Cite in APA format Further, justify whether Just-in-Time is an inventory control policy or a process improvement methodology. Also, examine if it can be both.

Cite in APA format

Now, think about how to communicate this information using the AIDA principle. Describe your ad and promotion.

  • First, tell us about your company or product. What is your unique selling proposition? How do you distinguish your product or company from your competitors?
  • Now, think about how to communicate this information using the AIDA principle. Describe your ad and promotion.

 

  • How would you vary your ad for different media platforms? How would you vary the schedule to air it for maximum coverage with minimal expense?

Identify the components and structure of your argument by presenting your deductively valid argument in standard form, and explain how your conclusion follows from your premises.

You must post to this discussion on at least four separate days of the week, and your posts must total at least 400 words as you address the questions. Your first post must be completed by Day 3 (Thursday) and the remainder of your posts must be completed by Day 7 (Monday). You must answer all aspects of the prompt at some point during the week. Also, reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as you can.

The total combined word count for all of your posts for this discussion, counted together, should be at least 400 words. Answer all the questions in the prompt, and read any resources that are required to complete the discussion properly. In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, complete your initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other posts by Day 7 (Monday). We recommend that you get into the discussion early and spread out your posts over the course of the week. Reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as you can.

The topic of this week is deductive reasoning. Accordingly, in this discussion your task is to create a deductively valid argument for your position (the same position that you defended in the Week One discussion).
Prepare: To prepare to respond to this prompt, make sure to read carefully over Chapter 3 and the required portions of Chapter 4. View the deLaplante (2013) video What Is a Valid Argument? as well as the other required media for the week. For more guidance about how to construct a valid argument for a controversial position, review the Constructing a Valid Argument video and the document How to Construct a Valid Main Argument. Based on the sources, create a deductively valid argument for the position you defended in the Week One discussion.
Reflect: To make your argument deductively valid, you will need to make sure that there is no possible way that your premises could be true and your conclusion false. Your premises must lead logically to the truth of your conclusion. Make sure that your argument is sound, that is in addition to being valid, make sure that the premises are true as far as you can tell. If your argument is invalid or if it has a false premise, revise it until you get an argument that you can stand behind.
Write: Identify the components and structure of your argument by presenting your deductively valid argument in standard form, and explain how your conclusion follows from your premises.

Explain a scenario in which the premises could be true and the conclusion false, or find another argument with the same form that has true premises and a false conclusion.

The key concept in deductive logic is the concept of validity. One good way to learn to understand the concept of validity better is to discover what makes arguments invalid.

Prepare: To prepare to respond to this prompt read carefully the required portions of Chapters 3 and 4, paying special attention to the sections from Chapter 3 about validity and using the counterexample method. Take a look as well at the required resources from this week, especially those that discuss the concept of validity.

Reflect: Choose an argument from the following list of arguments (try to make sure not to choose the same argument as someone else). Consider the way in which the reasoning is actually invalid (perhaps subtly). Think about why that argument is invalid in the sense that it would be possible for all of the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

Choose from the following list of argument options.

1. If the maid was guilty then she would have had to been at the scene during the crime. However, she was seen a mile away only minutes before the crime, and she has no car. She must be innocent.

2. Everyone has to eat food with adequate calories. A bag of Doritos is food with adequate calories, so everyone should eat a bag of Doritos.

3. All winos drink alcohol. All alcoholics drink too much. Therefore all winos are alcoholics.

4. He won’t go to the wedding since he doesn’t like mushy stuff and weddings are mushy.

5. I can’t go to the movies with you – I have a test tomorrow and I have to study.

6. Capital punishment is wrong because it kills a human being.

7. To go to the movie you have to have a ticket. To buy a ticket you must pay money. Thus, to go the movie you must pay money.

8. All dogs have fur. All mammals have fur. So all dogs are mammals.

9. If he makes a lot of money then he dresses nice and has a fancy car. He does dress nice and have a fancy car. So he must make a lot of money.

10. He will cry during the movie if he is a big softie. He cried during the movie. Therefore he is a big softie.

11. If I wear that cologne then women will love me. I bought that cologne, so women are going to love me.

12. No snakes are mammals. No mammals are birds. Therefore no snakes are birds.

13. Every dog with brown fur hates cats. Some dogs have red fur. Therefore some dogs love cats.

14. To fix your care you will need money. However, to have money you have to have money. It appears that you need to get a job.

15. Only adults can legally drink. John is too young to legally drink. Therefore, John is not an adult.

16. Mike loves pickles. Pickles come from cucumbers. Therefore Mike loves cucumbers.

17. If you don’t do your chores then you can’t have any dessert. You really like dessert, so you will certainly do your chores.

18. You can have soup or salad. You are having the salad, so you won’t be having any soup.

19. You will get an A if you study hard and always come to class. You came to class every time and studied. You are bound to get an A.

20. He broke the record for rushing yards in a game on that last play. No one else has broken the record since then. Therefore he still holds the record.

21. He won the election. The election was for governor. So he will be the next governor.

22. The sun has risen every morning for millions of years. The sun rises because the earth turns every 24 hours. Therefore the sun will rise again tomorrow morning.

23. If he loved you he would have shown up on time with flowers. He must not love you.

24. Abortion kills a human being, therefore abortion is wrong.

25. Julie is allergic to gluten. So she won’t be having any bread.

26. Only women can have babies, so women are more important to the survival of the species.

27. You shouldn’t use drugs because they are addictive and can ruin people’s lives.

28. You shouldn’t go out with that guy. He rides a motorcycle and goes to bars.

29. In order to buy a car you will need money. But, to have money you need to get a job. But to go to a job you will need to be able to get to work. So, you will not be able to buy a car.

30. Capital punishment kills a human being. It is wrong to kill a human being except in self-defense. So capital punishment is wrong.

31. If you talk to Mike about politics then he will yell at you. If he yells at you then you will be hurt and it will damage your friendship. Therefore you shouldn’t talk to Mike about politics.

32. Either the maid or the butler did it. For the butler to have done it he would have had to have been at the mansion yesterday. The butler was away all day yesterday. So the maid did it.

33. It is always wrong to kill a human being unless it is in self-defense. Abortion kills a human being. So abortion is wrong unless the mother’s life is in danger due to the pregnancy.

34. You shouldn’t tell someone to do something unless you would be willing to do it yourself. You’ve never gone to war. So you shouldn’t vote for others to go to war.

35. Government intervention is justified if it is necessary to protect the welfare of the people and does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. Therefore, government intervention is justified in this specific case because it is necessary to protect the welfare of the people.

Write: Put the argument into standard form, clearly identifying the premises and conclusion. Once you have done so then demonstrate that the argument is invalid in one of two ways: Either explain a scenario in which the premises could be true and the conclusion false, or find another argument with the same form that has true premises and a false conclusion. Once you have done so, make sure to explain how your argument refutes the validity of the original argument. Mention if you think that there is anything that could be done to make the original argument valid.

Guided Response: Read the reflections of your classmates and analyze the counter example that they have presented. Provide another example that demonstrates that the same argument is invalid. In particular, if you believe that the argument is invalid, explain a way in which it would be possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false or give another argument of the same form in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

By the way, why can valid arguments have false conclusions? And, why are premises/reasons never valid or invalid?