In Your Written Component Of The Final Project You Will Anal ✓ Solved

In Your Written Component Of The Final Project You Will Analyze An Ar

In your written component of the Final Project, you will analyze an argument in relation to a specific issue. Then, you will respond to that argument by providing a counterargument. Please choose one reading or media artifact from the Final Project Argument Options. Be sure to choose an issue in which you are interested and for which you have enough factual evidence to create a strong argument.

Complete the steps below based on your chosen argument:

Step One: Evaluate the Argument

Identify the issue that is addressed in the argument.

Explain the argument and identify the premises and conclusions.

Evaluate the argument. If the argument has a deductive component, is it valid and sound? Why? If it has an inductive component, is it strong or weak? Why? Remember that arguments often contain both inductive and deductive components. Do your best to identify all the arguments supporting the piece.

Step Two: Create a Counterargument

Create a counterargument to the original argument. Present premises supporting your position and highlight weaknesses in the original argument.

Avoid fallacious reasoning and anecdotal evidence. Ensure inductive arguments are strong, and deductive arguments are valid with sound premises. Use factual evidence and/or logical support from at least three scholarly sources. You may adopt an opposing stance to your personal view to strengthen critical thinking skills.

The written assignment must be 1100 to 1400 words (excluding title and references) and formatted according to APA 6th edition guidelines. It must include a title page, an introduction with a thesis statement, a main body analyzing and developing the counterargument, and a conclusion reaffirming the thesis. Support your analysis with at least three scholarly sources from the Ashford University Library.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The rising concern about climate change has sparked numerous debates regarding the primary contributors to global warming. One prevalent argument attributes the majority of greenhouse gas emissions to industrial activities and fossil fuel consumption. This argument posits that reducing reliance on fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy sources are essential steps to mitigate environmental impact. The argument is based on premises such as the significant contribution of industries to carbon dioxide emissions and the correlation between fossil fuel usage and climate change. The conclusion advocates for policy changes favoring renewable energy adoption and stricter environmental regulations. However, while this argument underscores crucial issues, it also contains weaknesses that merit scrutiny.

In evaluating this argument, the deductive component aims to establish a logical connection between fossil fuel consumption and climate change. The premise that fossil fuels are the primary source of greenhouse gases is supported by extensive scientific data (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014). The validity of the deductive reasoning hinges on the premise’s truth; since extensive research confirms this, the argument is valid. The soundness hinges on whether the premise is true; given corroborative evidence from multiple climate studies, the premise is indeed true, rendering the deductive component both valid and sound.

Regarding the inductive component, the argument relies on empirical observations linking increased industrial activity and carbon emissions to climate deterioration. While these observations are compelling, inductive reasoning depends on the strength of the evidence, which varies across different regions and industries. Some scholarly works suggest that other factors, such as deforestation and agriculture, also significantly contribute to climate change (Lal, 2008). Therefore, the inductive support for the claim that fossil fuels are the predominant cause, while strong, has limitations, necessitating a nuanced view.

Building on this evaluation, a comprehensive counterargument could posit that focusing exclusively on fossil fuel reduction overlooks other critical factors contributing to climate change. Deforestation, methane emissions from agriculture, and urbanization also play substantial roles (Peters et al., 2014). Thus, a holistic approach should consider multiple sectors to effectively combat climate change rather than centering solely on fossil fuels.

Furthermore, the counterargument emphasizes economic and social considerations. Transitioning rapidly away from fossil fuels could disrupt economies dependent on these industries, impacting employment and development in vulnerable regions (Stern, 2007). These factors challenge the feasibility of immediate policy shifts, suggesting that strategies should incorporate gradual transitions supported by technological innovation and sustainable practices across sectors.

Support for this counterview is drawn from scholarly sources indicating that climate policies must address multiple causes and integrate economic considerations. Lal (2008) underscores the importance of reforestation and sustainable land use; Peters et al. (2014) highlight impacts of agriculture; Stern (2007) discusses economic implications of climate policies. These sources collectively advocate for inclusive, multi-faceted strategies that acknowledge the interconnectedness of ecological and economic systems.

In conclusion, while the original argument rightly emphasizes the critical role of fossil fuels in climate change, its limitations suggest the need for a more comprehensive perspective. A multi-sectoral approach, supported by sound scientific evidence and economic considerations, offers the most viable path forward for sustainable environmental policy. Recognizing the complexity of climate change enhances our capacity to develop effective mitigation strategies that are scientifically grounded, economically feasible, and socially equitable.

References

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. IPCC.
• Lal, R. (2008). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 321(5897), 798-799.
• Peters, G. P., et al. (2014). Towards systems integration for global change research: The case of agent-based modeling in climate policy. Environmental Modelling & Software, 55, 118-125.
• Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press.