Scenario
You work for OneEarth, an environmental consulting company that specializes in building-condition assessments, contaminated-site remediation, and energy audits. Founded by an environmentally concerned citizen in 2010, OneEarth has emerged as the highest-quality and most comprehensive environmental services company in the northern region of the United States.
Recently, ardent local representative Sy Bill Wright contacted OneEarth for assistance evaluating the validity of arguments related to fracking. He agreed to meet with any interest or advocacy groups that wanted to discuss their positions to ensure that he was well-informed about the controversial topic. Now, he needs OneEarth’s help examining the arguments and the evidence they provided to ensure that he makes a sound decision. He believes that OneEarth, a highly-respected environmental firm with strong connections to the local community, could provide critical insights to his evaluation of the advocacy groups’ evidence. Aware of your previous work advising on fossil fuel management, your manager Claire DeAir has asked you to serve as a liaison to representative Wright.
Directions
Representative Wright has provided you with all of the information he received from the advocacy or interest groups that he entertained the previous week. This information in available in his email in the Supporting Materials section. In your position paper (750–1,250 words), you will evaluate the arguments of each group, specifically examining their conclusions, premises, assumptions, and evidence. Using your analysis, representative Wright will be able to determine how to take the soundest position on the controversial topic. In your paper, include the following components:
Refer to the Supporting Materials section to explore how to write effectively.
What to Submit
Every project has a deliverable or deliverables, which are the files that must be submitted before your project can be assessed. For this project, you must submit the following:
Position Paper (750–1,250 words)Your manager, Claire DeAir, has asked you to serve as a liaison to representative Wright. You will develop a position paper that evaluates advocacy groups’ arguments about the topic. Using your analysis, representative Wright will be able to determine how to take the soundest position on the controversial topic.
Part of my project is done just need some help on the following. Attached is the paper I’ll leave some feedback from the profesor.
Distinguishes between inductive and deductive arguments
Although many of the project resources contain a lot of information, whether for fracking or against it, only two of the resources present formal(ish) attempts at making arguments: “Hydraulic Fracturing: Critical for Energy Production [etc.]” by Nicolas Loris and the article by Gina M. Angiola–contain clear attempts at making arguments. Of those two articles, one’s argument is primarily inductive and the other’s is primarily deductive. Please identify which argument is which type. This is a rather tricky decision to make because each of the articles uses some of each type of reasoning. But one of them uses mostly deductive while the other uses mostly inductive reasoning.
You’ll find much more information about deductive and inductive arguments in the feedback for the next two rubric areas. As you master those areas, you’ll also be mastering this one.
Also, please know that Angiola uses several sources—including a summary of several hundred peer-reviewed articles—to support her position, but the hyperlinks have recently disappeared. We who grade projects for this course are currently trying to determine what to do about this situation.
One more thing: please read Loris’s article very carefully to see the logical fallacies he employs. I use the word “employs” because Loris uses so many fallacies, so skillfully, that we can infer he is using them intentionally to cover the shortcomings in his argument. But as you re-read Loris’s article, ask yourself every time he makes a claim, “Okay, does this claim truly address the issue? Or is this claim kind of about the issue but really doesn’t settle it?”
For example, Loris claims that it isn’t the fracking process that can cause earthquakes, but rather the storage wells used in fracking that can cause earthquakes. Therefore, he asserts, the claim that fracking causes earthquakes is a myth. Well, Loris there is using a logical fallacy called Logic Chopping or Splitting Hairs. The storage wells for fracking wouldn’t exist–and therefore couldn’t cause earthquakes–if not for the existence of the fracking process. So saying that “fracking doesn’t cause earthquakes, fracking storage wells cause earthquakes” is rather like saying, “I’m not allergic to my cat, I’m allergic to my cat’s fur.”
I urge you to look closely for logical fallacies including Red Herring, Begging the Question, Poisoning the Well, and Reductio ad Absurdem (a rhetorical technique that doesn’t have to be used fallaciously, but is in this case). Once you’ve spotted the first one or two instances of Loris’s fallacies, you’ll probably find it easier to spot and identify the others.
Here are two lists of resources. The first list discusses the components of argument and of the two types of logic (deduction and induction). The second list discusses common logical fallacies, which can occur in both types of argument.
Components of argument and logic:
Logical fallacies
Evaluates the validity and soundness of the deductive argument based on an examination of the premises, conclusions, and fallacies
Since your paper has not yet covered Loris’ argument, I will hold off on this rubric in case, after covering it, you change your mind about Angiola’s argument and decide that Loris’ argument is the deductive one.
For the deductive argument (Loris or Angiola), you should analyze it for the following:
The following Learning Resources focus on analyzing deductive arguments (the ones marked with an asterisk focus on fallacies):
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
In addition, these resources on fallacies can also be helpful:
https://www.geckoboard.com/best-practice/statistical-fallacies/
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
Assesses the strength or weakness of an inductive argument based on an examination of the type (analogical or causal), premises, fallacies, and conclusions
For the inductive argument (Loris or Angiola), you should analyze it for the following:
The following Learning Resources are related to analyzing inductive arguments:
Analyzing Inductive Arguments