Soul ET AL V. CT association of schools

This is not an opinion piece or persuasive essay. The goal is to present contrasting arguments using information from credible sources and to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these positions using content from the course.

As you put this together, are you following the critical analysis process that we emphasize in critical reasoning? This means fairly considering all research equally before reaching a conclusion.

include 1–2 paragraphs for each of the following elements:

Introduction: Identify the issue/topic. Provide the necessary background and important recent developments. Define key terms and concepts.
Arguments and Counterarguments: Summarize the best arguments on both sides of the issue. Include relevant research from credible sources used to support each conclusion.
Evaluation of Critical Thinking: Assess the strength of the arguments and the quality of thinking surrounding this issue.
Identify weaknesses in critical thinking such as fallacies, rhetorical devices, vague language, and cognitive biases. Provide specific examples of how these weaknesses appear in arguments, using terminology and definitions from the course
Evaluate the quality of scientific and anecdotal evidence using the standards of inductive and deductive reasoning described in the course. Consider the quality of causal relationship, analogies, generalizations, and/or moral reasoning.
Conclusion: Analyze the totality of research and offer a critical thinker’s response to the issue. Identify your own position and experience with the issue and explain how your thinking of the subject has evolved as a result of your analysis.
You must use a minimum of 5 research references in APA Style and include in-text citations in your paragraphs. Include a minimum of 3 academic peer-reviewed books or journal articles. All research should be published within the last FIVE years. Other sources may be used as supplemental sources, such as journalistic, government, web-based, or media sources. Sources should not include dictionaries, encyclopedias, or general information websites like Wikipedia.

NO ABORTION topics
APA abstract
Proper Level I and II APA section headings for all major sections of the essay.

This is not an opinion piece or a persuasive essay that simply aims to prove or reinforce what you already believe. This would be confirmation bias, and bias must be avoided in this project.
This project needs to avoid harsh rhetoric or language that is harmful and hurtful in nature. The point is to be objective and unemotional in your approach.
This essay should be written in a fair, academic, respectful, and analytical manner regardless of any of your opinions, feelings, or preconceived notions about the topic.
Both sides of your topic must be treated with equal attention, both in terms of the number and quality of sources and in the depth and breadth of their presentation in your essay. Both sides should be addressed in the same number of paragraphs in roughly equivalent detail, and should be supported by the same number of quality sources.
You must identify and define rhetorical devices and logical fallacies on both sides of the argument. Be sure you indicate which specific rhetorical device and fallacy you have found, and there is evidence in your sources of these course concepts in practice that is cited in your paper.
You will present statements and claims for analyzing both sides of the topic. Only then should you state you own conclusion as an objective, critical thinker given the information presented.

course concepts examples:
Rhetorical devices:
euphemism, dysphemism, weaselers, downplayers, stereotypes, innuendos, loaded question, ridicule, sarcasm, hyperbole, proof surrogate, repetition, superlative language..
Fallacies formal: Denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent, commutation of conditionals, affirming the disjunct,
of relevance: ad populum, appeal to emotion, ad hominem, red herring, straw man, genetic fallacy, false dilemma,
of ambiguity: the fallacy of division, equivocation..
informal fallacies: post hoc ergo, sweeping generalization, hasty generalization,
others: begging the question, complex question, posing the well, guilt by association, the burden of proof