Please read the attachment files.
Critical Thinking – Argument Reconstruction Write a paper on the arguments below. Your paper should: Begin with a very brief summary of the argument. Reconstruct the argument into standard form: make sure your reconstruction is well-formed. For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or, if it is a conclusion, indicate which premises it follows from. You don’t need to mention which pattern is being followed. Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be no more than a paragraph of text in length. You might find some premises that you think are obvious. If you really cannot come up with a further defense, explain why you think the premise is obvious. Choose one premise and object to it. You should aim for your objection to be no more than a paragraph of text in length. SITCOMS “Almost every sitcom from 20+ years ago are full of racism and homophobia. I think we should just stop watching them. Honestly, whenever people talk about how good old sitcoms are, I get pretty mad. Why would anyone watch something that is so likely to be full of garbage messages?” GRADING RUBRIC: If a reconstruction is both valid and accurate, the grade range is B to A+. If a reconstruction is valid and not accurate, the grade range is C+ to B+ If a reconstruction is accurate but not valid, the grade range is C to B If a reconstruction is neither valid nor accurate, the grade range is D to C+. Where in the grade range? This depends on (in order of priority): How adequate the defenses of the premises are. How adequate the objection is. 1. For the defenses of premises: If the premises is an “if…then” claim: did they assume the if part and then tried to show that the “then” part follows? If the premises is an “all” or “most” claim: did they defend it by giving (a) a definition of A and B, or (b) a list of As that are Bs, or (c) a source? For the remaining premises: was the evidence in their defense relevant to the premise? 2. For the objection: Did the student object to a premise rather than the conclusion? Did the student correctly identify which premise they were objecting to?