Humanities Homework Help

I need support with this English question so I can learn better.

Use the editorial by Camille Paglia entitled “On Date Rape” (find it on page 144 of the Ch. 6 reading) or choose an editorial (Links to an external site.) or op-ed (Links to an external site.) from your own reading (including any of the texts you have read this week), and write a 2 – 4 paragraph informal essay evaluating the argument.

The Approach

[1] Analyze each paragraph of your chosen editorial in order. Compose a list of the fallacies you find in each paragraph – give names of fallacies or identify weaknesses in reasoning (not all weaknesses can be precisely named) and illustrate with specific examples from the editorial. Avoid the trap of being too picky; you won’t necessarily find significant fallacies in every paragraph.

[2] During this paragraph-by-paragraph analysis, keep the argument’s conclusion in mind and ask yourself if the author provides adequate support for it.

[3] Next, review your paragraph-by-paragraph analysis to determine the two or three major problems in the argument. Then group and condense your list of faults or fallacies and, in a coherently written 2-4 paragraph informal essay organized around these two or three principle categories, present your evaluation of the argument. For example, if you find more than one instance of personal attack, devote one of your paragraphs to this fallacy and cite all the examples you find to support your claim. Follow the same procedures for other weaknesses.

Identify each specific example you cite either by paraphrase or direct quotation, imagining as you write that the reader is not familiar with the editorial you are critiquing. In your introduction, briefly discuss the issue of the editorial you’ve chosen, possibly supplying background information not covered in the editorial itself.

Audience

College readers who have not read the editorial and who are not familiar with all of the fallacies listed in the text.

Purpose

To illustrate to a less critical reader that published arguments written by established professionals are not necessarily free of fallacious reasoning.

no plagirusum.