This Discussion Post 2 (2 Points) Is Based On Reality

This discussion post #2 (2 points) is based on the reality and value

This discussion post #2 (2 points) is based on the reality and value assumptions you already identified in the documentary “Half the Sky: Part I,” as well as anything else you remember from that documentary and from class discussion about the documentary. You should try to arrange some of the reality and value assumptions that you identified in the movie into an argument by using standard form. What argument might be implied by this documentary – either by one segment of the 3 segments we watched, or all 3 segments taken as a whole. Although I recommend that you try to identify and set up, in standard form, an argument of Nicholas Kristoff, it is also possible to identify and set up, in standard form, an argument by other people that appear in the documentary.

First try to identify a conclusion. What is Nicholas Kristoff proposing, or what is his position that he is trying to defend or put forth? This could be a possible conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be explicitly stated.

You are reconstructing an argument, in which case, you do not need to rely only on direct quotes. There is no argument if there is no conclusion. Secondly, identify those assumptions that might provide support for this conclusion (as premises) and put them into standard form. P1 (premise 1) (reasons that support the conclusion; “because”) P2 (premise 2) P3 (premise 3), etc. C: Conclusion (Therefore,….)

Secondly, identify further evidence for some of those assumptions that you have listed as main premises, and use this further evidence to set up sub-arguments within the standard form. This further evidence may be more concrete, such as examples or statistics. P1a (further evidence for P1; called a sub-premise) P1b (further evidence for P1 P1 (premise 1, now being treated as a sub-conclusion for the above evidence; Therefore…) P2a (further evidence for P2) P2b (further evidence for P2), etc. P2 (premise 2, now being treated as a sub-conclusion for the above evidence; Therefore…) P3 (premise 3) C: Conclusion (Therefore,…)

Examples of standard form (pp. 76, 134, 136) can be found in the text. However, sub-argument cannot be found in the text; an example of an argument in standard form which includes one sub-argument (using slightly different notation) can be found in the electronic reserves reading assignment, “Thinking Clearly” by Jill LeBlanc.

TIPS FOR DOING THE POST: 1) Remember that the documentary might include material that is not part of an argument, and, therefore, you may leave it out, or, if it is relevant to one premise of the argument, include it as part of a sub-argument. 2) Do not simply "retell a story" — your premises should show links in the reasoning that lead up to the conclusion. That is why it is important to choose one main conclusion first, and then work backwards to the evidence or reasons used to support it. (In light of the evidence, you may also go back and revise the conclusion.) 3) You need not depend only upon direct quotes. You may also paraphrase main premises or "reconstruct" the argument by pulling (or extracting) from direct quotes, the main reasons for the conclusion, and then finding further evidence for some of these main reasons and formulating them into sub-arguments within your standard form.

4) The main premises (P1, P2, P3, etc.) usually include the more general reasons that support the conclusion. The sub-premises that support each main premise usually include the more concrete evidence, such as particular examples, any statistics, etc. 5) In reconstructing an argument, you should identify any implicit assumptions, especially as regards definitions of terms (reality assumptions) or value assumptions that may remain unstated in the actual video. In evaluating arguments, which we will eventually do, we need to identify these implicit assumptions, because this is where the controversy may lie, or this may be where there is not sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the argument, or this may be where there is a “gap” in the logical reasoning of the argument (which we will learn is the fallacy of “begging the question”).

6) Any argument implied in the documentary might not proceed entirely in linear order or sequence, which means the conclusion might not be stated at the end or even at the beginning of the video, given that it is explicitly stated at all. That is another reason why you might want to paraphrase main premises or "reconstruct" the argument by pulling (or extracting) from different places in the documentary, the main reasons for the conclusion, and then finding further evidence from different places in the documentary for some of these main premises to formulate sub-arguments within your standard form. 7) Sub-arguments should be included within the "standard form" of the main argument, and should not be listed separately. The conclusion of a sub-argument is one of the main premises of the main argument. 8) Although standard form looks like an outline (in reverse), it is not an outline. You must use complete sentences which make statements with content. Do not say “Statistics about rape”, but rather state some of those statistics in complete sentences. Do not use short phrases, such as “Education in Vietnam”, but rather state something about the content of education in Vietnam.

Moreover, the sub-premises (P1a, P1b, etc.) which support a main premise (P1, for example) should support that main premise, and not simply elaborate on that main premise. This is why indicator words are important – see pp. 62 – 63 in your text. Try to set forth the logical connections between each sub-premise and premise, etc.

Paper For Above instruction

The documentary “Half the Sky: Part I” presents a compelling exploration of gender inequality, human rights violations, and efforts to empower women worldwide. The core argument implied by the documentary is that addressing atrocities against women and girls is vital for global development and moral progress, and that intervention strategies rooted in education, healthcare, and advocacy are essential to transforming these realities. The documentary, through various segments, constructs an implicit argument emphasizing that gender-based violence and oppression undermine societal progress and that empowering women will lead to economic and social benefits. This essay reconstructs the central argument using standard form, identifying main premises supported by concrete evidence and sub-arguments, and demonstrating the logical flow from realities depicted in the documentary to the conclusion that active intervention to improve women’s lives is necessary and justified.

Reconstructed Argument in Standard Form

P1: Women and girls in impoverished regions are subjected to systemic violence, oppression, and exploitation, which violates their basic human rights. This is supported by evidence of practices such as forced trafficking, FGM, and domestic violence documented in the film.

P1a: For example, in rural China, women are forced into marriages that limit their freedoms; in Kenya, girls suffer from female genital mutilation, which causes physical and psychological harm.

P1b: Statistics indicate that over 70% of human trafficking victims are women and girls, highlighting their vulnerability (UNODC, 2022).

P1: Therefore, the systemic violence against women and girls constitutes a significant violation of human rights, requiring urgent intervention.

P2: Improving access to education and healthcare for women and girls leads to increased empowerment, which is essential for societal progress. Evidence shows that girls' education correlates with improved health outcomes and economic participation.

P2a: Studies from Kenya demonstrate that girls who attend school are less likely to suffer early marriage or teenage pregnancy (UNICEF, 2020).

P2b: In Afghanistan, women with access to healthcare have lower maternal mortality rates, indicating that health interventions are effective (WHO, 2019).

P2: Thus, access to education and health services is a vital step towards empowering women and fostering sustainable development, which supports the argument for intervention.

P3: Empowering women through economic opportunity and advocacy reduces gender inequality and promotes societal well-being. Microfinance initiatives and women’s rights campaigns have shown measurable success.

P3a: In Bangladesh, microfinance programs targeting women have lifted millions out of poverty, demonstrating economic empowerment's effectiveness (Yunus, 2011).

P3b: Advocacy campaigns in India increasing awareness of women’s rights have led to stronger legal protections and social support systems (Narayan, 2002).

C: Therefore, because systemic violence harms human rights, while education, healthcare, and economic empowerment can mitigate these issues, active intervention to improve women’s lives is both necessary and morally justified.

Conclusion

The documentary advocates that addressing gender-based violence, expanding access to education and healthcare, and empowering women economically are essential steps toward achieving social justice. These actions collectively contribute to societal advancement and uphold fundamental human rights. The implicit argument, supported by concrete evidence and sub-arguments, underscores that interventions rooted in empowerment and protections for women are imperative for sustainable global development.

References

• UNODC. (2022). Global Report on Trafficking in Persons. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
• UNICEF. (2020). The Effects of Education on Early Marriage in Sub-Saharan Africa. UNICEF Reports.
• World Health Organization. (2019). Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet. WHO Publications.
• Yunus, M. (2011). Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism. PublicAffairs.
• Narayan, D. (2002). Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook. World Bank Publications.
• Kristoff, N., & WuDunn, S. (2009). Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. Vintage Books.
• Htun, M., & Weldon, S. L. (2012). The Logics of Women’s Substantive Representation. Comparative Politics, 44(1), 21-41.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
• Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.
• Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Development Studies, 41(2), 166-188.