Category: Philosophy

MOVIE: food inc. by Robert Kenner 
Explanation: 
1. The first paragraph should state the main idea or thesis. What are they trying to say? Why did they make this film? What is the argument they are making? It does not need to be long, but it may take two, three or perhaps four sentences to clearly express the author’s central claim.
2. The second paragraph should show the reasons the author uses to support their main claim in the first paragraph. How do they attempt to convince you of their main point? You may talk about details of the film, but the point is not to relate what happened but to show how they form or support the central argument.
3. The third paragraph should take roughly ½ the page and consist of your assessment about the film. Is the claim of the film correct? What does it get wrong or right? Why? What do you think of the claims? What should be done? Etc.
Things to avoid: Fluff, BS, unneeded sentences – you only have 1 page double spaced, try to make sure every word you have is necessary.
Things to remember: 
1. Be aware of counter claims. If you are saying something for which there are counterclaims, recognize them and address them. If there are clear counter examples to something you are saying and you don’t attempt to deal with them that is a sign that you may have not thought hard about the issue. Obviously, we cannot think of all counter claims, but attempt to be aware of them.
2. You do not need to put references, but if you do quote the text, only use short quotes and just put the page number in parenthesis (214).    

Instructions are down below. The main instructions for this assignment can be found in a 
doc called assignment content. 

all the directions are clearly stated. in this assignment, you are required to do philosophical graphs and ven diagrams. please do not choose this order if you are not familiar 

ASSIGNMENT: 
Choose an advertisement that contains at least three or four rhetorical devices or fallacies (but more would be better!), from a newspaper or a magazine (in which case you should scan the ad, save it as a PDF, and submit it with your assignment) or an online source (in which case you should include the EXACT URL with your assignment, pasted as a link with the assignment). You CANNOT use video ads for this assignment choose an ad that is an image, not a video.
The advertisement must be made after 2000 CE (no ads produced before the year 2000).
The advertisement must be in ENGLISH. Otherwise, your analysis cannot be graded.
Analyze the ad for uses of rhetorical devices or fallacies. Explain which devices you see in the ad, making sure to be specific in your analysis. You must clearly identify the specific parts of the advertisement that you find rhetorical or fallacious.
In addition to identifying any rhetorical devices and fallacies, analyze the ad in terms of the following:
Who is targeted in the ad (who is the target audience?)?
What psychological effect does the ad have on the audience?
What subconscious needs or desires among the audience does the ad seem to be playing upon?
The written analysis must be at least 1000 words (to earn minimum credit for this assignment)
*****Here are some of the rhetorical devices and fallacies in this module I’ve learned and I would like some of these terms included in the essay****
Ad Populum: The Ad Populum fallacy is when a claim is made that an idea should be accepted because a large number of people favor it or believe it to be true.
Ad hominem: (“against the person”) and tu quoque/inconsistency ad hominem (“you, too!”) fallacies focus on people rather than on the arguments or evidence the person is presenting. They usually take the form of “You shouldn’t believe X’s argument because X is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque).” In some cases, the person’s circumstances are used as the basis for rejecting the person’s claim, in which case it is a “circumstantial ad hominem.” For example, when we reject a claim from someone simply because we think they may be biased (via their political/religious/social views, via their employment, etc), we are actually being illogical and committing a circumstantial ad hominem. Biased sources are capable of making true statements and presenting truthful evidence. By rejecting a claim because we believe the source may be biased, we are not allowing for the possibility that the person is saying something true. In cases of suspected bias, we should “suspend judgment” instead of rejecting the claim as false. In all three types of ad hominem above, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.
Circular Reasoning: The circular reasoning fallacy occurs when a speaker or writer simply restates a point rather than applying evidence to support the claim.
Red Herring: fallacy committed when we go off topic to distract the audience from the original issue, to get the audience to either accept or reject a claim (because the audience does not realize that a new tangential issue has been raised).
Smokescreen: is a similar tactic, but instead of distracting by discussing one new topic, the person brings up many new issues to “mask” the original issue. We may not even remember what the original issue was in the presence of a smokescreen.
False Dilemma: (also called a false dichotomy) presents only two options (when really more than two exist, or at least there is no evidence of why these are the only two options), then eliminates one of those options, leaving us with the conclusion that we really have only one option. We often hear this fallacy presented in loose ways: “you’re either with us or against us” “of course we must do this action; after all, we can’t do nothing!”
Misplacing the Burden of Proof: occurs when the person who is responsible for providing evidence (the person making the claim/argument) instead shifts that responsibility to the opponent/listener/audience. 
For example, “Yes, obviously it is important to get a college education. Can you give me one good reason why one should not go to college?” If one is making a claim that it is important to do something, then one has the responsibility to provide evidence for why it is important. In the above example, the speaker should be providing evidence for why going to college is important. But notice here, the speaker shifts that responsibility to the listener, and demands that the listener disprove the claim. 
Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning: in its simplest form occurs when the speaker pretends to present evidence for a conclusion, but really the premise and the conclusion are just saying the same thing (using synonyms). 
For example, “It is immoral to keep a dog chained up in a yard like that. Why? Because chaining an animal is wrong.” No evidence has been presented here. “Immoral” and “wrong” mean the same thing in this context. The speaker has just repeated the same idea over, while pretending that a premise with evidence has been provided.

Please the essay is 100% AI generated. Pkease help me rewrite it where it is better and not Ai generated. it is not supposed to be in an essay format it just simply answers the questions on the assignment in paragraphs 

Hello, all the instructions are in the files attached. Do not use internet resources. I believe in God so you have to write this essay in the perspective of believing in God.

Write a 1 page double spaced book analysis in as much detail as possible, this is very important to my grade and I need it to be done thoroughly and well thought out. There is five books to chose from. If you accept this job you would need to find the book if your choice  online yourself because I don’t not have a copy: 
List of books you can choose from: 

Hello, my final essay is an essay on Love and Happiness. Do NOT use large vocab that a sophomore in college wouldn’t use. Be straightforward in writing style and do not use any citations. I’ve attached the assignment directions and the class syllabus below.
Write a 5-6 page paper in which you present Plato’s theory of beauty, including his explanation of the nature of eros, and consider whether Plato is right to connect the love of beauty to happiness. Is he? Is devoting a significant part of your life to engagement with beauty the key to happiness? Explain your answer and consider other potential sources of happiness.

are true at all. This shows, Kripke believes, that Smart’s “identity thesis” can’t be
true. What is Kripke’s reasoning here? Explain and evaluate.
Kripke claims that identity statements such as “water is h2o” are necessary if they are true at all. This shows, Kripke Believes, that smarts’ identity thesis can’t be true. What is kripke’s reasning here? evaluate and explain.
My suggestion is this. Return to Smart’s article to understand what exactly the identity thesis is. Think: what are the conditions for the identity thesis to be true? It might also be helpful to consider what would *counter* the truth of the identity thesis. Then, yes, I would recommend just focusing on the excerpt we read from Kripke. It was a long time ago so I don’t remember, but I think that is all you need. Just make sure you discuss the relevant section where he’s implicating the identity thesis.
In Kripke, look for the claim discussed in the prompt and try to explain, as if to a peer who isn’t in the class, what exactly Kripke means when we say that identity statements are necessary, if true at all. 
Then, put Kripke and Smart in conversation and try to bring out Kripke’s argument for why such a statement would negate the identity thesis. Try to explain this in a slow, step-by-step way, as thoroughly as you can in five double-spaced pages. 
You can, of course, also disagree with Kripke that his claim means that Smart’s identity thesis can’t be true. But either way, you should spend time evaluating whether (and why) you think Kripke is right or not.

his research paper will be the culmination of the research you proposed in week 4. Be sure you have followed the instructions below; Writing a philosophy paper and Directions for how to format your paper as an argument.
Upload it as an MS Word document. If you attach it as a PDF or any other format that is not APUS compatible it will not be graded.
Your paper should be 1500 – 2000 words (excluding the cover page and citation page)
Your paper should have at least 5 academic resources
You may use MLA or APA formatting
Use the APUS Online Library and the Philosophy Research Guide https://www.apus.edu/apus-library/online-research/research/research-guides/school-of-arts-humanities/philosophy
Please look at the following to help you write a philosophy paper.
Please look at the following to help you format your paper as an argument.
Due on May 19, 2024 11:55 PM
Attachments
MLA Sample Paper.pdf (147.17 KB)
Download All Files
Hide Rubrics
Rubric Name: PHIL202 Research Essay