Determine whether the original claim is based on a representative and sufficiently broad sample and ask yourself whether all relevant factors were considered when analyzing the data leading to generalization. So share with you a fun and totally non-scientific test of Bob Sutton, which was popularized more than a decade ago. You can easily “play” the answers, but that`s not the point. Instead, take the test and think candidly and honestly about the extent to which you see one of these behaviors within you. 10. Just because Linda`s fingerprints were on the gun that killed Terry and the gun was registered at Linda`s house does not mean that Linda killed Terry, because Linda`s prints would surely be on her own pistol, and someone else could have stolen her gun and used it to kill Terry. Questions are at the heart of the arguments. What matters is not only that you think that what you have to say is true, but that you give others viable reasons to believe it, and also to show them that you have approached the subject from different angles. To do this, build your argument from the answers to the five questions that a reasonable reader expects answers to. In academic and professional writing, we tend to create arguments based on the answers to these main questions: “It`s just common sense that the Earth is flat, because when I look at it, I can`t see a turn, even when I`m on a plane.
I don`t need a scientist to tell me what I can discover with my own eyes. This person rejected by passing all the scientific evidence against a flat earth, as if it did not matter. Often, those who make an illogical appeal to disbelief, what they consider “common sense,” are replaced by real scientific evidence by the implication that they do not need another basis to understand. The problem is that many truths in our universe cannot be understood solely by common sense. Science provides the answers, often through complex mathematical and theoretical conditions, but ignorance of science is not a legitimate reason to reject them. Consumers of written texts are often tempted to divide writing into two categories: argumentative and non-argumentative. From this point of view, the letter, in order to be argumentative, must have the following characteristics: it must defend a position in a debate between two or more opposing parties, it must deal with a controversial subject and the purpose of such a letter must be to prove the correctness of one position vis-à-vis another. Example: many societies had hierarchical social and political structures throughout history, and those at the higher level, such as aristocrats and rulers, had authority over those of them. In fact, the term “nobility” in the West contained the idea that the aristocracy was really better – more ethical, smarter, more rewarding – than those that were lower on the social scale.