week 3 Assignment

– Assignment  

I used the first question under Ethical Question: It is permissible to use capital punishment on persons convicted of certain crimes? for the first writing assignment and I have to use the same question to continue the last 2 assignments.     

       
Scholarly Arguments
In the Week 1 Presenting Arguments assignment, you objectively and neutrally evaluated reasoning on each side of your question from non-scholarly sources. For this assignment, you will objectively and neutrally evaluate and present the reasoning from scholarly sources on the same question. For an example of how to complete this paper, take a look at the Week Three Example paper.
Conduct research from scholarly sources on each side of your issue and write a paper that includes the following:

Introduction (approximately 100 words) 

Explain your topic and state the specific question that you are addressing (be sure to incorporate any relevant feedback you got from the instructor on your first paper).

Presentation of an Argument  

Describe the scholarly source on one side of the issue and summarize the key points made. (approximately 100 words)
Present what you see as the main argument from that source in standard form, with the premises listed above the conclusion. (approximately 100 words)
Evaluate the quality of the reasoning in this source. You may address questions such as: How adequately the article supports the premises with research and how strongly the premises of the argument support the truth of the conclusion. (approximately 200 words)

Presentation of an Opposing Argument  

Describe the scholarly source on the other side of the issue and summarize the key points made. (approximately 100 words)
Present what you see as the main argument from that source in standard form, with the premises listed above the conclusion. (approximately 100 words)
Evaluate the quality of the reasoning in this source. You may address questions such as: How adequately the article supports the premises with research and how strongly the premises of the argument support the truth of the conclusion. (approximately 200 words)

Evaluation of Arguments in Non-Scholarly and Scholarly Sources (approximately 200 words) 

Discuss the differences in the quality of the reasoning or in the degree of support in the sources that you analyzed (Scholarly and Popular Resources (1) (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.). 

Some specific types of questions you might address here include: Who is the target audience? What types of motives may be influencing these authors? Discuss any logical fallacies in any of the sources.

Conclusion (approximately 50 words) 

The Scholarly Arguments paper

Must be 600 to 1,200 words in length (not including title and references pages), double spaced, and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the APA Style (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. 
Must include a separate title page with the following: 

Title of paper
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted

For assistance with formatting of the title page, refer to APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
Must use at least three scholarly sources in addition to the course text. The Help! Need Article (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. tutorial can also assist with searching for articles. 

The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.
The Integrating Research (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. tutorial will offer further assistance with including supporting information and reasoning.

Must document all sources in APA style, as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style. See the Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. resource in the Ashford Writing Center for specifications.

Grading Rubric
Total Possible Score: 10.00
 

Explains the Topic, and States the Specific Question Being Addressed 
Total: 0.50  
Distinguished – Thoroughly explains the topic, and clearly states the specific question being addressed.
Proficient – Explains the topic, and states the specific question being addressed. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear.
Basic – Minimally explains the topic, and states the specific question being addressed. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.
Below Expectations – Attempts to explain the topic and state the specific question being addressed; however, significant details are missing and entirely unclear.
Non-Performance – The explanation of the topic and statement of the specific question being addressed are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.

Presents the Main Argument from the Source on One Side of the Issue, Describing the Scholarly Source and Summarizing Key Points Made
Total: 1.00  
Distinguished – Thoroughly presents the main argument from the source on one side of the issue, fully describing the scholarly source and thoroughly summarizing the key points made.
Proficient – Presents the main argument from the source on one side of the issue, describing the scholarly source and summarizing the key points made. Minor details are missing.
Basic – Partially presents the main argument from the source on one side of the issue, somewhat describing the scholarly source and partially summarizing the key points made. Relevant details are missing.
Below Expectations – Attempts to present the main argument from the source on one side of the issue; however, does not describe the scholarly source and summarize the key points made, the source is not scholarly, and/or significant details are missing.
Non-Performance – The presentation of the main argument from the scholarly source on one side of the issue is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Evaluates the Quality of the Reasoning in the First Source
Total: 1.00  
Distinguished – Comprehensively evaluates the quality of the reasoning in the first source.
Proficient – Evaluates the quality of the reasoning in the first source. Minor details are missing.
Basic – Minimally evaluates the quality of the reasoning in the first source. Relevant details are missing.
Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the quality of the reasoning in the first source; however, significant details are missing.
Non-Performance – The evaluation of the quality of the reasoning in the first source is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Presents the Main Argument from the Source on the Other Side of the Issue, Describing the Scholarly Source and Summarizing Key Points Made
Total: 1.00  
Distinguished – Thoroughly presents the main argument from the source on the other side of the issue, fully describing the scholarly source and thoroughly summarizing the key points made.
Proficient – Presents the main argument from the source on the other side of the issue, describing the scholarly source and summarizing the key points made. Minor details are missing.
Basic – Partially presents the main argument from the source on the other side of the issue, somewhat describing the scholarly source and partially summarizing the key points made. Relevant details are missing.
Below Expectations – Attempts to present the main argument from the source on the other side of the issue; however, does not describe the scholarly source and summarize the key points made, the source is not scholarly, and/or significant details are missing.
Non-Performance – The presentation of the main argument from the source on the other side of the issue is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Evaluates the Quality of the Reasoning in the Source on the Other Side of the Issue
Total: 1.00  
Distinguished – Comprehensively evaluates the quality of the reasoning in the source on the other side of the issue.
Proficient – Evaluates the quality of the reasoning in the source on the other side of the issue. Minor details are missing.
Basic – Minimally evaluates the quality of the reasoning in the source on the other side of the issue. Relevant details are missing.
Below Expectations – Attempts to evaluate the quality of the reasoning in the source on the other side of the issue; however, significant details are missing.
Non-Performance – The evaluation of the quality of the reasoning in the source on the other side of the issue is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Discusses the Differences in the Quality of the Reasoning or in the Degree of Support in the Sources Analyzed 
Total: 1.00  
Distinguished – Thoroughly discusses the differences in the quality of the reasoning or in the degree of support in the sources analyzed.
Proficient – Discusses the differences in the quality of the reasoning or in the degree of support in the sources analyzed. The discussion is slightly underdeveloped.
Basic – Minimally discusses the differences in the quality of the reasoning or in the degree of support in the sources analyzed. The discussion is underdeveloped.
Below Expectations – Attempts to discuss the differences in the quality of the reasoning or in the degree of support in the sources analyzed; however, the discussion is significantly underdeveloped.
Non-Performance – The discussion of the differences in the quality of the reasoning or in the degree of support in the sources analyzed is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Criterion Reflects on How the Activity Influences How Research Will be Conducted in the Future 
Total: 0.50  
Distinguished – Thoroughly reflects on how the activity influences how research will be conducted in the future.
Proficient – Reflects on how the activity influences how research will be conducted in the future. The reflection is slightly underdeveloped.
Basic – Minimally reflects on how the activity influences how research will be conducted in the future. The reflection is underdeveloped.
Below Expectations – Attempts to reflect on how the activity influences how research will be conducted in the future; however, the reflection is significantly underdeveloped.
Non-Performance – The reflection on how the activity influences how research will be conducted in the future is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Total: 1.00  
Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.
Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.
Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: APA Formatting
Total: 0.50  
Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors. 
Basic – Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements. 
Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: Page Requirement
Total: 0.50  
Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages. 
Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages. 
Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.   
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: Resource Requirement
Total: 2.00  
Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient – Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.
Below Expectations – Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Week 3 Example:
  
Is Marijuana [FC1] Use Safe?
Dr. Christopher Foster
PHI103 Informal Logic
Ashford University
Modeled example for week 3 assignment
 
With[FC2]  many states legalizing both medical and recreational marijuana, an important question for voters, legislators, and potential users is whether marijuana is safe. There have been many studies done on the topic, with findings on both sides. The focus of this paper will be to present scholarly research on both sides of the question and to evaluate the quality of each. To provide the most reliable information possible, I have chosen to present the findings of meta-studies on each side of the question of the safety of marijuana use. I will present[FC3]  and evaluate the reasoning used by each and conclude with a discussion of the value of different types of sources in terms of the degree of support that they provide for their conclusions.
Presentation of an Argument that Marijuana Use is Safe[FC4] 
A large meta-study was performed by a group of researchers at UC San Diego focusing on the long-term neurocognitive effects of cannabis use (Grant, Gonzales, Carey, Natarajan, & Wolfson, 2003). The study analyzed other studies that had been done, comparing data for 623 cannabis users against 409 non- or minimal users. The researchers found that chronic users of marijuana showed minor decreases in performance in the categories of learning and remembering, but no other significant effects. The study concludes that cannabis is probably safe for use for medical purposes [FC5] (Grant et al., 2003). 
The primary argument given may be represented in standard form as follows: 
Premise [FC6] 1: Combining data from studies that have been done on the effects of marijuana use on cognitive function allows for a large data pool from which to draw strong conclusions.
Premise [FC7] 2: In six out of the eight cognitive areas studied, namely: reaction time, attention, language, abstraction/executive, perceptual, and motor skills, no significant cognitive impairment was found among marijuana users. 
Premise 3: In the two areas in which cognitive impairment was found, learning and memory, the effect was small and could have been affected by sample bias.
Premise 4: Medical use of marijuana tends not to involve long term use, resulting in even more minor if any, ill effects.
Premise 5: Medical use of marijuana is likely to have benefits that outweigh minor amounts of harm.
Conclusion: Medical use of marijuana has “an acceptable [FC8] margin of safety under the more limited conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical setting” (Grant et al., 2003).
The reasoning presented appears to be strong [FC9] since the premises appear adequately to support the idea that the potential harms are minor and either don’t apply to medical use or are outweighed by the benefits to be gained therefrom. The article also attempts to explain away the negative effects in learning and memory, suggesting that they could be due to selection bias in the articles reviewed or due to an insufficient time of non-use of the drug prior to the study (Grant et al., 2003). If the article is right about that, then perhaps there is no significant neurological harm even in those two areas. The article supplies substantial support for its premises[FC10] , since there is a large data pool, all of it gathered from scientific studies.
However, the article points out that there are limitations [FC11] of the research, such as different lengths of time within the studies since the last use of the drug and the question of whether long term marijuana users may not have the same initial cognitive abilities as those that do not, making causal inferences more difficult (Grant et al., 2003). 
Presentation of an Argument that Marijuana Use is Unsafe[FC12] 
On the other side of the issue, a study from 2016 seems to demonstrate the exact opposite conclusion. The authors show that use of marijuana, especially by teens, has many long term negative effects and is associated with a multitude of including physical, psychiatric, neurological, and social impairments (Feeney & Kampman, 2016). The argument presented can be summarized as follows:
Premise 1: Marijuana is addictive (Volkow, Baler, Compton, & Weiss, 2014).
Premise 2: Marijuana causes breathing problems (Tashkin, Baldwin, Sarafian, Dubinett, & Roth, 2002).
Premise 3: Marijuana may increase the likelihood of developing schizophrenia and other psychiatric symptoms (Arseneault, Cannon, Witton, & Murray, 2004).
Premise 4: Marijuana causes long terms harms cognitive abilities, including attention, memory, processing speed, and executive functioning (Thames, Arbid, & Sayegh, 2014).
Premise 5: Marijuana use by teens is correlated with lower academic achievement, job performance, and social functioning in relationships (Palamar et al., 2014).
Premise 6: Marijuana use results in decreased psychomotor function, and reaction time, causing driving risks (Neavyn, Blohm, Babu, & Bird, 2014).
Conclusion: Marijuana[FC13]  use can cause physical, psychological, neurological, and social harm, especially when used by adolescents. 
The reasoning in the article seems quite strong[FC14] . The conclusion seems to follow from the premises since it mostly summarizes the research findings. Furthermore, the premises are well supported since they are all based in scientific research studies[FC15] . 
However[FC16] , there are some limitations in the strength of the reasoning (as noted within the study). One of those limitations is that we are not sure in all cases if marijuana use is the cause of the impairment observed. For example, the article notes that the correlation with schizophrenia may or may not be causal (Feeney & Kampman, 2016). Furthermore, most of the studies focus on the use of marijuana by teens; therefore, these results may have limited application to discussions of marijuana use among adults, especially those using it for medical purposes.
Evaluation of Arguments:
Both of these scholarly sources supply quite a bit of evidence for their conclusions by analyzing the data from multiple scientific studies. Non-scholarly sources, by contrast, frequently make claims that are not supported at all, or are only supported by other partisan sources[FC17] . One of my non-scholarly sources does not explicitly cite any research at all, but only implies that it exists (Foundation, n.d.). This allows non-scholarly sources, such as advocative web pages, to make it sound as though the case for their position is much stronger than it actually[FC18]  is.
However, as we have seen, even scholarly sources are capable of contradicting each other. This would not be surprising in non-scholarly sources, especially between sources with advocative intent. It is more surprising to find contradictory results within scholarly sources. [FC19] 
However, there are possible ways to resolve these contradictions. One possibility comes from noting that the first meta-study combined the data from its studies. Some of these specific studies showed greater and lesser scores for various neurocognitive skills among marijuana users, and the meta-study’s methodology allowed them to cancel each other out. The study on the contrary side, on the other hand, simply cited one source each for the various harms, which may have enabled the authors to select studies to cite that showed results more favorable to their preferred conclusion.
Thus, while non-scholarly sources can be clearly partisan and non-objective, pulling from whichever sources, reliable or not, that support their point of view, even scholarly sources are able to analyze data in ways that are far from neutral.
Conclusion:
Studying [FC20] the reasoning on each side of the issue has been enlightening. Though there is still debate, even among scholars, about the safety of marijuana use, studying the reasoning from high quality sources gives perspective about the type of evidence that is being used on each side, allowing one to assess which evidence is more reliable and provides more support for its conclusion. In the future, I am more likely to go to scholarly sources over popular ones and to analyze a multitude of scholarly results to understand the issue from a more well informed point of view.
  
References[FC21] 
Arseneault, L., Cannon, M., Witton, J., & Murray, R. M. (2004). Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: Examination of the evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 184(2), 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.184.2.110
Feeney, K. E., & Kampman, K. M. (2016). Adverse effects of marijuana use. The Linacre Quarterly, 83(2), 174-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2016.1175707
Foundation for a Drug Free World. (n.d.). The truth about marijuana: Behind the smoke screen. Retrieved from http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/marijuana/behind-the-smoke-screen.html
Grant, I., Gonzales, R., Carey, C., Natarajan, L., & Wolfson, T. (2003). Non-acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(5), 679-689. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617703950016
Neavyn, M. J., Blohm, E., Babu, K. M., & Bird, S. B. (2014). Medical marijuana and driving: A review. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 10(3), 269-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-014-0393-4 
Palamar, J. J., Fenstermaker, M., Kamboukos, D., Ompad, D. C., Cleland, C. M., & Weitzman, M. (2014). Adverse psychosocial outcomes associated with drug use among US high school seniors: A comparison of alcohol and marijuana. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 40(6), 438-446. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2014.943371
Tashkin, D. P., Baldwin, G. C., Sarafian, T., Dubinett, S., & Roth, M. D. (2002). Respiratory and immunologic consequences of marijuana smoking. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 42(S1), 71S-81S. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-4604.2002.tb06006.x 
Thames, A. D., Arbid, N., & Sayegh, P. (2014). Cannabis use and neurocognitive functioning in a non-clinical sample of users. Addictive Behaviors, 39(5), 994-999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.01.019
Volkow, N. D., Baler, R. D., Compton, W. M., & Weiss, S. R. B. (2014). Adverse health effects of marijuana use. New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 2219-2227. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1402309
    
[FC1]Begin with a title page, formatted according to APA standards
 
[FC2]The paper begins with an introductory paragraph, allowing readers to learn and see the importance of the research topic.
 
[FC3]Introductory paragraphs should contain a preview of what will be covered in the rest of the paper.
 
[FC4]Clear section headings make certain that the paper is organized and make it easy for instructors to know that all required elements of the assignment have been covered.
 
[FC5]This paragraph introduces the reader to the source and overviews its findings.
 
[FC6]The clearest way to express an argument is in standard form, with the premises labeled and listed above the conclusion.
 
[FC7]The premises of the argument are not usually listed clearly within articles (scholarly or otherwise). It is necessary for you to formulate what you feel is the main argument given in the paper.
 
[FC8]The premises and conclusion of your argument should be put in your own words. If some passages are directly from the source, then they should occur within quotation marks, with the source cited.
 
[FC9]After the argument is given, there is a paragraph detailing the strength of the reasoning (how certain the premises make the conclusion, assuming that they are true).
 
[FC10]This is a comment on the amount of support for the premises.
 
[FC11]It is important to point out any weakness in the reasoning as well. Sometimes these weaknesses are pointed out in the article and not necessarily fallacious. Other times, you may notice weaknesses in the reasoning that are not acknowledged within the article itself. Either way, it is important to comment on any such factors affecting the strength of the reasoning.
 
[FC12]It is good to supply section headings that are as clear as possible about what the section covers.
 
[FC13]It is important to present both arguments as strongly as possible. One of the points of this assignment is to be able to understand and appreciate the strongest arguments on each side of issues (rather than to take sides).
 
[FC14]These sentences evaluates the strength of the reasoning itself.
 
[FC15]This sentence comments on the support for the premises (which is a separate question from the strength of the reasoning).
 
[FC16]In addition to summarizing the strength of the reasoning and support for the premises, it is important to note any sources of weakness within the argument.
 
[FC17]This section contrasts the evidence given by scholarly sources (week 3) with the amount of evidence given by non-scholarly sources (from week 1). 
 
[FC18]Part of the point of the week 1 and week 3 assignments is to contrast the type of support that one can find in scholarly versus non-scholarly sources.
 
[FC19]Some of the questions in the prompt for this section are intended to be somewhat open-ended … the purpose is to critically discuss the sources of evidence, including the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. This analysis goes beyond just answering those questions and focuses on an interesting related issue about apparent contradictions one can find even in scholarly research.
 
[FC20]A simple concluding paragraph can contain things such as thoughts on what one has learned about the value of searching out different types of sources.
 
[FC21]Always have a reference section that contains citations for all of the sources that you use within the article.
   �U