Type your question hereSince we can easily prove that so-called right-minded people can be wrong, and since we all recognize that human beings make mistakes, we have accept the idea that our ideas are merely ideas that should be questioned.

For this assignment, more than two-thirds of it will, therefore, not have anything to do with your opinion. And to make sure, you have to analyze two opposing arguments.

You are to pick two and only two articles that should be opinion pieces. You may, for instance, choose an article written by someone in favor of abolishing the death penalty. I don't care if you agree or not. You have go through the argument that is presented and find fallacies in it. Then, similarly, you have to go through the other argument, someone who believes we need to keep the death penalty, and you have to find fallacies in it.

So you have to nitpick and break down two arguments, looking for fallacies.

So the paper is:

Part 1 - The Pro Argument
Part 2 - The Con Argument
Part 3 - Your Summary and Opinion

Finally, in part three, you are supposed to summarize which argument you find to be better written. You may share your opinion about the issue, but you really should summarize the relative qualities of the two arguments.

As you can see, this assignment is supposed to get you to recognize that no matter what we believe, arguments that are sympathetic to our own view are often considered to be superior, but frequently it's just our beliefs reinforcing weak claims.

To do this assignment, we must understand claims and fallacies, which we will explore in the following chapter, but which are explained by the Lozo textbook: