solved Response 1: We use logic in our day to day

Response 1: We use logic in our day to day lives, one may not think about it as a necessity, however we use logic when we construct statements, argue our point of view, and in myriad other ways. Understanding how logic is used will help us communicate more efficiently and effectively, without using logic we wouldn’t be able to effectively communicate with others, and this communication is important because logic helps us better understand good arguments. It helps us differentiate between good and bad reasons to believe something; we should want to have well-justified beliefs. Everyone should have a logical approach when it comes to beliefs, Therefore, in applying a logical approach it is more logical than unique. Although, to each their own. And To some extent there are both subjective and objective aspects of logic. There are many advantages to using logic, now this isn’t to say that using emotions doesn’t have its own advantages or isn’t necessary, but a huge advantage of logic is that it teaches you the basics of reasoning. It also teaches logical fallacies, which are argument ploys or tactics that people fall for, but that aren’t logical. So, you learn to be savvier as well as learning to reason better. Knowing logic improves your overall thinking. With using logic, we can accomplish self-discovery, expansion of consciousness, and self-renewal, which all play a huge role in modern argument because it broadens one’s perspective about the world. Therefore, when we are faced with a routine daily situation or a very difficult problem or issue to resolve, logic and reasoning are important to remember and be applied for the best or most desired results. Understanding this, I think the logical approach to reasoning will be the most useful in my research argument rather than using emotion, in many ways, logic is better than emotion. The more you can think critically and objectively about a decision before you make it, the more likely the decision will be the best for you. Emotion still plays a significant role in decision making, including logical decision making, for example, all human brains have an emotional and logical side. People come in different proportions, some are poets, and some are accountants, but we all have this in common—an unending strife in which both sides of our brains are always locked in conflict. At times emotions are needed when it comes to an argument, and at times both emotions and logic are needed. I believe that we were given both things for a reason, both are needed to work simultaneously with each other. If we only needed logic then emotions wouldn’t exist, it’s about finding a balance between the two in an argument.However with logic comes with fallacies, and there are a number of fallacies that can be seen in everyday life. One of them being the Straw Man Fallacy, I see this a lot in articles and tv, a perfect example of this in my opinion is the flat earth depocial. In an article by physics world (https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/) rapper B.o.B (real name Bobby Ray Simmons Jr) started a crowdfunding campaign to launch a satellite. The rapper, a vocal proponent of “flat-Earth theory”, wanted to seek evidence that our planet is a disc, not a globe. His aim was to raise $200,000 (later upped to $1m) on the GoFundMe website, with the aim of sending one or more craft into space to help him “find the curve” – the term that “flat-Earthers” use to describe the edge of our supposed disc-shaped planet. However, in that same article it states what we all know that the Earth is sphere shaped and not disc shaped, the article states the following, the idea that the Earth is a sphere was all but settled by ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle (384–322 BC), who obtained empirical evidence after travelling to Egypt and seeing new constellations of stars. Eratosthenes, in the third century BC, became the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Islamic scholars made further advanced measurements from about the 9th century AD onwards, while European navigators circled the Earth in the 16th century. Images from space were final proof, if any were needed. With the understanding that the Straw Man/Straw Man Fallacy is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat and refute the evidence that it clearly is not, even though they have no evidence proving that it is flat. They want to believe something that is false even when there is evidence that proves otherwise, and in the article, it stated that the flat Earth idea is becoming more and more popular. Another common fallacy is the bandwagon fallacy, which is also sometimes called the appeal to common belief or appeal to the masses because it’s all about getting people to do or think something because “everyone else is doing it” or “everything else thinks this.” A great example of this is the iPhone, Apple comes out with a new one just about every year, and sometimes people feel left out if they don’t have it. Everyone wants to feel a part of something, and no one wants to feel left behind, so some people jump on the bandwagon and get the newest iPhone even if they may not be able to afford it. And with the rise of social media there is this constant pressure to keep up with the Joneses, in an article by Wealth Professionals it stated that (https://www.wealthprofessional.ca/news/industry-news/pressure-to-keep-up-with-the-joneses-rises-with-social-media/257313) according to a poll, more than a third of Americans admit their spending habits have been influenced by images and experiences shared by their friends on social media (34%) or spend more than they can afford to do stuff with friends (35%). A generational comparison showed that millennials were most likely to be swayed. (49% confessed that they spent more because of social media, and 48% said they were likely to spend beyond their means to avoid being left out), followed closely by Gen- Z respondents (44% and 41%, respectively). The False Dilemma Fallacy, or sometimes called the “either-or” fallacy, is another type of common fallacy that I come across. Essentially, a false dilemma presents a “black and white” kind of thinking when there are actually many shades of gray. An example of this is false dilemma fallacy in advertising, a statement like “If you don’t use our beauty products, you’ll never look youthful” is a perfect example. It’s creating a false sense of urgency to look a certain way, and sure there may be ingredients in a particular product that may help someone look useful, that’s the black and white. However, the gray area of that is the people who are allergic to this particular product. This form of advertising works though because of the climate that we are in with beauty standards constantly changing, and with that comes the pressure to look a certain way, in an article by The Jakarta Post (https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2018/11/12/pressure-on-girls-for-perfect-body-worse-than-ever-says-orbach.html) it stated that Girls and young women are under more pressure than ever to achieve the perfect body in an oppressive social media-driven world that could never have been imagined by 1970s feminists, says psychoanalyst and bestselling author Susie Orbach. Which is a valid point, and advertisers know this, and therefore The False Dilemma Fallacy works so well. In conclusion I think as participants in American culture, we can foster a healthier environment for productive debate by first respecting each other. In an argument/debate it’s very easy to get so passionate about the subject that it borders on being disrespectful, and that is not conducive to a healthy debate, because even if valid points are made it will get overshadowed. Also, arguments/debates can be seen as something negative as Jones mentioned in her essay, but it’s about the context. Jones stated in her essay, “The word argument often means something negative. Rather than envisioning argument as something productive and useful, we imagine intractable sides and use descriptors such as “bad,” “heated,” and “violent.” We rarely say, “Great, argument. Thanks!” Even when we write, in an academic “argument paper,” we imagine our own ideas battling others”. Therefore, context in an argument matters and learning how to argue respectfully. I am optimistic about the future of finding common ground in these important public discussions, I am optimistic because in the day and age that we are in information is very easily accessible with the constant rise of technology and the internet. With information being so accessible we as people now have a way to learn about a vast number of things, having this much access to information will help participants in a complex and diverse culture. With so much information out there it’s very easy for people to find common ground, and yes there will be people that will be on the extreme sides of an argument/debate, but that’s just the nature of the beast. Sometimes when it comes to debating/arguing there is no common ground, because some participants will stand firmly in whatever side they fall on. However, for the most part I am highly optimistic that trough research and the amount of information everyone has access to there is no reason why participants can’t find common ground for the most part. Response 2: Logic is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning”. However, I feel as if this hardly captures the exact extent of logic. It reaches further than simply the science of reasoning, and can be all encompassing if you think about it broadly enough. Generally speaking we are constantly (whether we notice it or not) exposed to two separate and equally useful logical forms of reasonings. Inductive reasoning is the less invasive generalization based on data that is readily available. This can be a powerful tool however, you must be very mindful of hasty generalizations which could lead you down a path of literate suicide. The other being of course Deductive reasoning and is a much more hardcore version of Inductive reasoning. This requires a much higher degree of certainty, containing a major premise, minor premise, and a conclusion. The extent of these components will of course be dictated by the situation one is utilizing them for. Another really powerful concept that should be at very least wave topped here is Formal verses Informal logic. Using both in tandem is paramount in formulating a well rounded logical mindset. The ability to use Formal logic is fantastic and can easily help you to identify patterns of great reasoning, as well as patterns of bad reasoning. However, utilizing the power of Informal logic (or critically thinking), can bring about new and exciting ideas to solve issues that Formal logic just could not achieve. This is why I believe that having this duality of logical tools in your toolbox is as powerful as it is. Strengthening both together will exponentially increase their effectiveness creating a symbiotic relationship that is as sharp as it is dynamic.Now when it comes to modern argument, logic should be front and center, yet this is not always the case. If we lived in a perfect world any and all arguments would be overstuffed with logic on all sides. We would have some fantastic back and forth as well as be on a fast track to being the best version of humanity possible. I think we might be pretty far from that as of right now, but we are making strides. In terms of what approach to reasoning I would find most useful for the research argument that I am developing for the course, I would have to go with Deductive reasoning. It is the more well put together of the two and allows for solid research to pretty much speak for itself. The only issue would be best categorized by the reading when it says, “Deductive arguments are only as strong as their premises, however, and while an argument may be logical, it can also be faulty.” (ENC1102Learning Unit 3, Pg, 1). Despite having an extremely logical argument, it could be layered with flaws that completely ruin itself. When it comes to news, politics, and advertising we see fallacies all day long. In politics we see huge amounts of ad hominem, from simple local government races all the way up to presidential debates. If you followed last years debates you will notice they too often came down to personal blows being exchanged back and forth. Both the former President as well as the current one used lines such as “this guy will close down the whole country and destroy our country” and “I am not here to call out his lies, everyone knows he’s a liar” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kK9UU3dTo8 (Links to an external site.)), which is also a good example of ad populum. A really nasty one that big tobacco used in the 1930’s and 40’s was the appeal to false authority fallacy. These companies would use the fact that not enough research had been done on the harsh effects of smoking , and pair that with the fact that some doctors actually were smokers themselves.(https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement (Links to an external site.)) Also this could be looked at as ad ignorantiam. A lot of the time we see the slippery slope fallacies used in the media for compelling television, but for this example we can just use education “if you don’t do your homework, you’ll fail the class. If you fail this class, you won’t graduate from school. If you don’t graduate, you won’t get into college. If you don’t attend a good college, you won’t get a good job. If you don’t get a good job, you’ll be poor and homeless. You don’t want to be poor and homeless, do you?” (https://examples.yourdictionary.com/slippery-slope-examples.html (Links to an external site.)).In regards to the rather heated argumentative climate of our nation, we all need to take accountability. Each and everyone of us are personally responsible for controlling how a debate or argument goes. It is okay to get riled up about the issues we feel the most passionately about, yet we must proceed with caution. We must keep in mind that everyone will not agree every single time, but we can not let this ruin all forms of logical argument. We as participants of the American cultural experience must be able to foster a healthy and clean environment for intellectual debate. Without that mindset we will have nothing but fallacies and illogical nonsense tossed around with little to no resistance. We stand on the frontier as one of the most culturally diverse and complex nations the world has ever seen. It is a power that few countries hold, but with great power comes great responsibility. If we are able to understand each other and come together with respect, direction, and logical reasoning there is nothing we can not accomplish. If this is what our future holds, I am beyond optimistic about finding common ground in these important public discussions. However, if we are not able to do so then I am afraid we will waste all this potential we have as a free nation. It is my hope that with that on the table, we will take the road less traveled. Answer Requirements:In two different documents, you must respond to the two responses. Peer interaction includes a substantive response of at least three full paragraphs. Response includes a salutation and a valediction, and the tone and content are appropriate and respectful. Response includes at least one piece of outside research via hyperlink to advance the larger discussion. Both responses are answering three questions:What role should logic play in modern argument? Which approach to reasoning do you think will be most useful for you in the research argument that you are developing in this course?Using at least three of the common fallacies listed in this learning module, explain which errors in logic you see most frequently in your daily experience with the news, politics, and advertising. Please link to a news story, advertisement, or opinion piece in supporting your view (you should have at least three hyperlinks for this discussion, although you don’t need to include a “Works Cited” list as part of your discussion post).In reflecting on Jones’s essay, Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic, (page 8 of the Learning Unit) how can we, as participants in American culture, foster a healthier environment for productive debate? Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of finding common ground in these important public discussions? Explain your views on finding common ground in the arguments that we engage with as participants in a complex and diverse culture.You’re not answering these questions. Although they can be used to help write the responses. Minimum of three paragraphs. The learning unit and essay link: https://cel.fscj.edu/LOR/enc/1102/3/ This can be read to help formulate responses also.