I’m working on a english exercise and need a sample draft to help me study. Prior to completing this assignment, read the Week 2 Instructor Guidance and watch the videos, What Is a Valid Argument? and How to Make a Sound Deductive Argument undefined In

DAP. xDeductiveargument. xattachment_19 x

 I’m working on a english exercise and need a sample draft to help me study.

Prior to completing this assignment, read the Week 2 Instructor Guidance and watch the videos, 

What Is a Valid Argument?

 and 

How to Make a Sound Deductive Argument

undefined

In the Week 1 Standard Form Arguments discussion forum you selected a topic related to your field of study or future career. That topic should be both controversial and have sufficient scholarly sources that answer the question on both sides. You will use this topic here as well as for the Week 3 Scholarly Arguments on Both Sides assignment and the Week 5 Fair-Minded Reasoning final paper.

undefined

This workshop gives you a chance to practice deductive reasoning by creating a sound argument on your topic. This is not a research paper (you will do that next week). It is a workshop on how to create sound arguments generally. This workshop teaches you to fill in premises needed to make an argument valid, while also striving to keep the premises true.

While you will be addressing your specific topic, the lessons in this exercise can help you to learn to construct and evaluate deductive reasoning in general.

undefined

Follow the steps below and take a look at the 

Week Two Example Paper

 for an example of how to complete this paper.

undefined

Step 1: State a thesis statement on your topic.

• This thesis statement does not have to end up being your final position on the subject, but for this workshop, it will serve as the position you will be defending. Your thesis statement is the conclusion of your argument.
• Example: If my topic is the moral acceptability of capital punishment, my thesis could be that capital punishment is not morally acceptable.

Step 2: Present your main reason or reasons in favor of your thesis.

• These reasons are the premises of your argument. State your argument in standard form.
• Example: If my thesis is that capital punishment is not morally acceptable, and my reason is that it sometimes kills innocent human beings, then my argument would be the following:

  Premise 1: Capital punishment sometimes kills innocent human beings.

• Conclusion: Capital punishment is not morally acceptable.

Step 3: State the new premise (or premises) that would be needed in order to make this argument valid.

• This new premise provides what is needed to link (in a valid way) the first premise(s) to the stated conclusion. For more guidance on how to do this, review the assigned sections of Chapter 3 in your textbook, and watch the videos What Is a Valid Argument? and How to Make a Sound Deductive Argument
• In the above example, the new premise needed to make the argument valid would be the following:

  Premise 2: It is not morally acceptable to do anything that sometimes kills innocent human beings.

• The new premise connects the first premise to the conclusion in a way that makes the argument logically valid.

Step 4: Discuss whether the new premise is true (in your view) and why.

• Does it have any counter examples? If it is not true (in your view), then how could you modify it so that it is true but still supports the conclusion? If it is true (in your view), how might you respond to a likely objection to it?
• In the example above, the new premise may not be true. A counterexample could be war. Wars typically kill at least some innocent human beings, but that does not make all of them morally unacceptable.
• To figure out how to modify the premise, one can ask the following: What is the difference between good wars and capital punishment? Perhaps it is that good wars are necessary to prevent greater overall harm.
• So, one might change the premise to, “It is not morally acceptable to do anything that sometimes kills innocent human beings, unless it is necessary to prevent greater overall harm.” This new version of the premise shows what is wrong with capital punishment without also entailing that war is always wrong.

Step 5: State the new version of the argument in standard form, adding any other premises needed to complete the reasoning (meaning to make it valid).

• The new argument becomes the following:

  Premise 1: Capital punishment sometimes kills innocent human beings.

• Premise 2: It is not morally acceptable to do anything that sometimes kills innocent human beings unless it is necessary to prevent greater overall harm.
• Premise 3: Capital punishment is not necessary to prevent greater overall harm.

Conclusion: Capital punishment is not morally acceptable.

Step 6: Discuss whether the new argument is deductively valid and whether all of its premises are true.

• If your argument meets both of these requirements (namely that it is valid and all premises are true), then you have an apparently sound argument; great job! If not, then go back to the steps above and repeat until you have a sound argument and revise Step 5 until it meets both requirements. (so that what you post under Step 5 above is your final, sound version).

Step 7: Once you have an (apparently) sound argument, present an objection to it.

• Imagine for a moment that you are a smart person with the opposite perspective on this issue. What would be your best objection to the argument that you just gave? It can be an objection to the truth of one of the premises or to the validity of the reasoning, or it can be a counter argument intended to override your argument. In any case, express here what you take that best objection to be.

The Creating a Sound Argument Workshop paper,

• Should be 1 to 2 pages in length.
• Must include a separate title page with the following:

  Title of workshop in bold font

  Space should appear between the title and the rest of the information on the title page.

  Student’s name
  Name of institution (University of Arizona Global Campus)
  Course name and number
  Instructor’s name
  Due date

Refer to the 

Writing a Thesis Statement

Writing Center resource to support writing a thesis statement for Step 1.

Carefully review the 

Grading Rubric

 for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

THIS IS ONE IS BASED ON THE WEEKLY ASSIGMENTS YOU ARE DOING WILL ATTACH YOU PREVIOUS ONE NDIO USHIKE TOPIC YAKOTHE ONE ABOUT DAP 
 

Running Head: DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICES IN PRESCHOOL 1

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE IN PRESCHOOL 3

Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Preschool

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Tutor

Date

Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Preschool

Today, what each child needs are strategies to teach that will consider the ballooning population of children who converse in a language other than English in the United States. Thus, the appropriate developmental practice (DAP) promotes the importance of early childhood education for improved learning progressions amongst preschool children (Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000). There are three approaches to help these learners achieve their goals; language classroom, bilingual classroom, and English language classroom. In this study, I will focus on the developmental significance of acquiring the second language during early child development.

According to available literature, dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool. However, in States like California, dual language learners’ enrolment in preschool is very low compared to non-dual language learners. According to Nunan (1999), the second language learning process is not quick; learners have to attend classes for around six months because the whole process can only be effective after the sixth month.  Considering my experience from my field of study, I will further consider some very important questions; Does equipment and the size of the learning facility or environment affect preschool children? Two are there different approaches of the preschool child within the learning process?

The environment plays a significant part in the learning progression, and class activities help in structuring the relationship between children and teachers. DAP in early childhood stresses the importance of early childhood education as the most important period of getting knowledge.

Reference

Latemore, G. (2020). —Dignity and Leadership: Implications of Leaders’ Language and Their Assumptions of Human Nature (Paper 4). Declaration of Authorship, 177.

Neuman, S. B., Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 7625 Empire Dr., Florence, KY 41042-2978.

RunningHead: DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT 1

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT 2

Deductive Argument: Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Preschool

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Date

Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Preschool

Today, what each child needs are strategies to teach that will consider the ballooning population of children who converse in a language other than English in the United States. Thus, the appropriate developmental practice (DAP) promotes the importance of early childhood education for improved learning progressions amongst preschool children (Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000). There are three approaches to help these learners achieve their goals; language classroom, bilingual classroom, and English language classroom. In this study, I will focus on the developmental significance of acquiring the second language during early child development.

According to available literature, “dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool (Nunan, 1999).” However, in States like California, dual language learners’ enrolment in preschool is very low compared to non-dual language learners.

Deductive argument

“Dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool.”

This statement is true and is intended to be valid, according to Nunan (1999), and is therefore considered as a deductive argument or reasoning. And again, the validity of the statement can be drawn from the fact in the introductory part that reads……..

“The appropriate developmental practice (DAP) promotes the importance of early childhood education for improved learning progressions amongst preschool children.”

According to this statement, DAP promotes progression amongst preschool children, including dual language learners. This affirms that the first argument is true and is intended to be valid, which qualifies it as a deductive argument.

On the other side of the coin, the same statement can still be rewritten and becomes invalid. For instance, “There will be no high-quality preschool learning in the absence of dual language learners.”The absence of dual language learners doesn’t bar others from getting high-quality education because even in the absence of dual language learners, the DAP will still promote the importance of improved preschool learning progression. This is an invalid argument that was intended to be a valid argument. Since the argument was intended to be valid, it also qualifies to be a deductive argument that is guilty of reasoning mistakes. While deductive and valid may be used interchangeably, there is always a line in between. Therefore, A valid argument is an argument with a logical conclusion, and a deductive argument carries the conscious intention of the person presenting it with the intention of making it valid. In this case, the statement, “Dual language learners stand to benefit from participation in high-quality preschool,” Is a valid deductive argument.

Reference

Neuman, S. B., Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 7625 Empire Dr., Florence, KY 41042-2978.

Creating a Sound Argument Workshop

Prior to completing this assignment, read the Week 2 Instructor Guidance and watch the videos,

What Is a Valid Argument?

and

How to Make a Sound Deductive Argument

In the Week 1 Standard Form Arguments discussion forum you selected a topic related to your field of study or future career. That topic should be both controversial and have sufficient scholarly sources that answer the question on both sides. You will use this topic here as well as for the Week 3 Scholarly Arguments on Both Sides assignment and the Week 5 Fair-Minded Reasoning final paper.

This workshop gives you a chance to practice deductive reasoning by creating a sound argument on your topic. This is not a research paper (you will do that next week). It is a workshop on how to create sound arguments generally. This workshop teaches you to fill in premises needed to make an argument valid, while also striving to keep the premises true.

While you will be addressing your specific topic, the lessons in this exercise can help you to learn to construct and evaluate deductive reasoning in general.

Follow the steps below and take a look at the

Week Two Example Paper

for an example of how to complete this paper.

Step 1: State a thesis statement on your topic.

·

This thesis statement does not have to end up being your final position on the subject, but for this workshop, it will serve as the position you will be defending. Your thesis statement is the conclusion of your argument.

· Example: If my topic is the moral acceptability of capital punishment, my thesis could be that capital punishment is not morally acceptable.

Step 2: Present your main reason or reasons in favor of your thesis.

· These reasons are the premises of your argument. State your argument in standard form.

· Example: If my thesis is that capital punishment is not morally acceptable, and my reason is that it sometimes kills innocent human beings, then my argument would be the following:

· Premise 1: Capital punishment sometimes kills innocent human beings.

· Conclusion: Capital punishment is not morally acceptable.

Step 3: State the new premise (or premises) that would be needed in order to make this argument valid.

· This new premise provides what is needed to link (in a valid way) the first premise(s) to the stated conclusion. For more guidance on how to do this, review the assigned sections of Chapter 3 in your textbook, and watch the videos
What Is a Valid Argument?

and

How to Make a Sound Deductive Argument

· In the above example, the new premise needed to make the argument valid would be the following:

· Premise 2: It is not morally acceptable to do anything that sometimes kills innocent human beings.

· The new premise connects the first premise to the conclusion in a way that makes the argument logically valid.

Step 4

: Discuss whether the new premise is true (in your view) and why.

· Does it have any counter examples? If it is not true (in your view), then how could you modify it so that it is true but still supports the conclusion? If it is true (in your view), how might you respond to a likely objection to it?

· In the example above, the new premise may not be true. A counterexample could be war. Wars typically kill at least some innocent human beings, but that does not make all of them morally unacceptable.

· To figure out how to modify the premise, one can ask the following: What is the difference between good wars and capital punishment? Perhaps it is that good wars are necessary to prevent greater overall harm.

· So, one might change the premise to, “It is not morally acceptable to do anything that sometimes kills innocent human beings, unless it is necessary to prevent greater overall harm.” This new version of the premise shows what is wrong with capital punishment without also entailing that war is always wrong.

Step 5

: State the new version of the argument in standard form, adding any other premises needed to complete the reasoning (meaning to make it valid).

· The new argument becomes the following:

· Premise 1: Capital punishment sometimes kills innocent human beings.

· Premise 2: It is not morally acceptable to do anything that sometimes kills innocent human beings unless it is necessary to prevent greater overall harm.

· Premise 3: Capital punishment is not necessary to prevent greater overall harm.

· Conclusion: Capital punishment is not morally acceptable.

Step 6

: Discuss whether the new argument is deductively valid and whether all of its premises are true.

· If your argument meets both of these requirements (namely that it is valid and all premises are true), then you have an apparently sound argument; great job! If not, then go back to the steps above and repeat until you have a sound argument and revise Step 5 until it meets both requirements. (so that what you post under Step 5 above is your final, sound version).

·

Step 7

: Once you have an (apparently) sound argument, present an objection to it.

· Imagine for a moment that you are a smart person with the opposite perspective on this issue. What would be your best objection to the argument that you just gave? It can be an objection to the truth of one of the premises or to the validity of the reasoning, or it can be a counter argument intended to override your argument. In any case, express here what you take that best objection to be.

The Creating a Sound Argument Workshop paper,

· Should be 1 to 2 pages in length.

· Must include a separate title page with the following:

· Title of workshop in bold font

· Space should appear between the title and the rest of the information on the title page.

· Student’s name

· Name of institution (University of Arizona Global Campus)

· Course name and number

· Instructor’s name

· Due date

Refer to the

Writing a Thesis Statement

Writing Center resource to support writing a thesis statement for Step 1.

Carefully review the

Grading Rubric

for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.