portfolio

portfolio Order Description Your task for the second submission is to have a go at classifyin" rel="nofollow">ing and evaluatin" rel="nofollow">ing an argument from the wild. You can either choose one of the arguments below, or fin" rel="nofollow">ind one on the web, or in" rel="nofollow">in a book. If you fin" rel="nofollow">ind one for yourself, make sure that it is presented in" rel="nofollow">in a short text (just a paragraph or two, as is typical in" rel="nofollow">in a letter to the editor), and that it contain" rel="nofollow">ins an argument of one of the followin" rel="nofollow">ing types: a. Deductive conditional argument b. Inductive generalisation c. Analogical argument d. Inference to the best explanation Once you have chosen your argument, do each of the followin" rel="nofollow">ing, focussin" rel="nofollow">ing on just one argument (so if the text contain" rel="nofollow">ins more than one argument, or subarguments, then just choose one of them and make it clear which you have chosen). 1 Classify the argument as one of the above types 2 Evaluate the argument. Are the premises acceptable? Are the in" rel="nofollow">inferences valid/strong? Give reasons for your answer. Remember that we have developed tools for evaluatin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">inferences of each of the above types, so use those tools. In other words, there are different questions that we should ask of each type. Make sure you consider the appropriate questions in" rel="nofollow">in your evaluation. Be brief, don’t write more than a paragraph or two. Put the argument, your classification, and your evaluation together in" rel="nofollow">in a sin" rel="nofollow">ingle document and submit it in" rel="nofollow">in MyLO usin" rel="nofollow">ing the portfolio 2 submission tool. You can fin" rel="nofollow">ind this by clickin" rel="nofollow">ing the “Assignment” icon in" rel="nofollow">in the top menu on MyLO, or lookin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in the “Assessment Resources” folder.    

Sample Solution