Instructions: The Signature Assignment For This Course Combi

Instructionsthe Signature Assignment For This Course Combines All The

The Signature Assignment for this course combines all the concepts you have explored in this term. In this assignment, you will choose one of the TED Talks below and form a response based on the provided guidance. As you respond to the questions, you will be expected to connect the concepts covered in this course to the information in your chosen video. Please choose ONE of the following TED Talks to respond to:

• TED. (2017, July). Why museums are returning cultural treasures / Chip Colwell [Video].
• TED. (2022, April). You Don't Actually Know What Your Future Self Wants / Shankar Vedantam [Video].
• TED. (2021, December). A "Seat at the Table" Isn't the Solution for Gender Equity / Lilly Singh [Video].

Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph for each of these prompts:

1. The Argument and Syllogism: Summarize the overall argument of the video, including main points and details. Identify the three parts of the syllogism the speaker uses: major premise, minor premise, conclusion.
2. Testing the Syllogism: Determine whether the argument demonstrates deductive or inductive reasoning. Support your choice. For deductive reasoning, test the syllogism for validity and soundness; for inductive reasoning, assess its strength and explain how or why it's stronger or weaker.
3. Rhetorical Appeals: Identify examples of ethos, pathos, and logos in the video. Explain what information led you to each identification and how these appeals influence persuasiveness.
4. Rhetorical Devices and Logical Fallacies: Identify a specific rhetorical device and a logical fallacy used in the presentation. Define each, explain how they are used, whether they seem intentional, and discuss their impact on the argument.
5. Moral Reasoning: Determine which type of moral reasoning (e.g., deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics) the video employs. Explain how and why, and whether this reasoning appears deliberate, including its effect on persuasion.
6. Reaction and Reflection: Share the most interesting takeaway from the video. Reflect on how applying course concepts influenced your understanding and response to the video's argument.

Include a title page with the chosen topic, follow APA formatting (12-point Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1-inch margins), and cite all sources properly. This is a formal assignment, so maintain coherence, clarity, and academic tone throughout.

Paper For Above instruction

The chosen TED Talk for this analysis is Shankar Vedantam’s "You Don't Actually Know What Your Future Self Wants," which explores the intricacies of human decision-making and how we often misjudge our future preferences due to cognitive biases. Vedantam constructs an argument emphasizing that our current selves often lack the foresight to understand what our future selves truly desire, influenced by psychological phenomena like projection and projection bias. The main points include how people undervalue future rewards, the role of cognitive biases in decision-making, and strategies to better align our present self with future needs.

The syllogism Vedantam employs can be summarized as follows: The major premise is that individuals do not accurately predict their future preferences. The minor premise is that psychological biases distort present judgments about future needs. The conclusion is that individuals should incorporate these biases into their decision-making processes to make better choices. By framing this argument, Vedantam guides listeners to recognize their cognitive limitations and suggests that understanding bias can help us better serve our future selves.

Determining whether this argument is deductive or inductive is crucial. Vedantam’s argument appears to be inductive because it relies on observations of human behavior and psychological experiments that suggest a pattern—people frequently misjudge their future preferences. These observations, while compelling, do not guarantee that every individual misjudges their future desires, which would be necessary for strong deductive reasoning. The inductive reasoning here can be assessed as relatively strong because the accumulated evidence from behavioral studies demonstrates consistent patterns, though it may not be universally applicable, thus making the argument plausible but not conclusive.

In terms of rhetorical appeals, Vedantam skillfully uses ethos by citing psychological research and experiments to establish credibility. His use of pathos appears when he describes real-world scenarios, like how people regret certain choices, evoking emotional responses from listeners. Logos is evident through statistical data and logical explanations about cognitive biases influencing decision-making. These appeals collectively enhance the argument’s persuasiveness by establishing trust, emotional engagement, and logical coherence.

A rhetorical device prominently employed in Vedantam’s presentation is analogy—comparing decision-making to predicting the weather, which is inherently uncertain. This analogy simplifies complex psychological concepts, making them accessible. A logical fallacy evident in the talk could be an overgeneralization, where Vedantam might imply that all individuals are equally prone to bias without acknowledging variability. While this fallacy could weaken the argument’s precision, it likely serves to strengthen the general persuasive effect by emphasizing common human fallibility.

The moral reasoning reflected in this talk aligns with consequentialist ethics, where the focus is on the outcomes of decision-making. Vedantam advocates for better awareness of biases to improve future choices, implying that considering these biases ultimately results in better life outcomes for individuals. This reasoning is deliberate; it appeals to the listener's desire for personal success and well-being, emphasizing the practical benefits of understanding cognitive psychology.

The most compelling takeaway from Vedantam’s talk is the importance of recognizing our cognitive limitations to make better decisions. Applying course concepts, particularly the analysis of argument structure and rhetorical devices, deepened my appreciation for how psychological insights can be powerful tools in persuasion. It challenged me to reflect on my own judgments about future preferences and to consider strategies to counteract biases, fostering a more mindful approach to decision-making.

References

• Vedantam, S. (2022). You don't actually know what your future self wants [Video]. TED. https://www.ted.com/
• Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an explanation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 573-597.
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
• Thompson, L. (2003). How types of questions shape judgment and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 733-746.
• Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2000). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 99-104.
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Nudging: A very short guide. Journal of Political Philosophy, 22(3), 276-287.
• Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut instincts: The intelligence of the unconscious. Penguin Books.