Study Guides (248,269)
Canada (121,449)
York University (10,192)
MODR 1770 (33)

Cheat Sheet for Passage Analysis

2 Pages
209 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Modes Of Reasoning
Course
MODR 1770
Professor
Jai Chetram
Semester
Fall

Description
Step 1: Main Conclusion Animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in and has force within a human moral world (¶1). Step 2: The Main Concepts (6 concepts) Rights (¶1), Animals (¶1), Interests (¶1), Humane (¶17), Human Moral World (¶18), Moral Patients (¶20) Step 3: The Main Conceptual Question (1-3 questions)  Are rights reserved only to the human moral world?  Do animals have a moral state of mind?  Do the rights of humans override the rights of animals? Step 4: The main Premise in Support of the Main Conclusion (¶12) P1: Many obligations are owed by humans to animals; few will deny that. But it certainly does not follow from this that animals have rights because it is certainly not true that every obligation of ours arises from the rights of another. (¶15) P2: One may be obliged to another for a special act of kindness done; one may be obliged to put an animal out of its misery in view of its condition- but neither the beneficiary of that kindness nor that dying animal may have had a claim of right. (¶40) [HP]: Most advances in medicine will continue to rely on the use of nonhuman animals, or they will stop. [Can medicine further advance without the routine use of animals in experimentation?] ****And state the [CONCLUSION]**** Step 6.1: Are the Concepts Clearly Defined? (Do it twice) The author has used the concept ___ in paragraph__, where he has failed to define this term in context to the article. In paragraph __, the author states “____” I do not believe this definition to be compelling by the author, because it simply is not defined clearly. He provided one word: __, to define __, but how that relates to ___ is unclear. [Provide evidence here] Overall, his definition and use of phantasm is ambiguous, unclear, and vague because its implications can mean many different things. Perhaps, the author is trying to say ____. Or ____. Thus, I think this meaning went beyond the context of the article; leaving it to be confusing and unclear. Step 6.2: Are They Used In a Sense That is Too Narrow or Too Wide? The concept ___ in paragraph _ is used by the author too widely because it goes beyond the context of the article. The author states in paragraph _ “__”. One could pose to the author and ask whether he is referring to the ____ or ____. [give evidence] The concept __ could have a variety of meaning, and the author failed to defined it more specifically what he meant by the concept because (give your evidence on meaning). Therefore, Cohen used the concept morally too widely, failing to define, more specifically what he/she meant by the meaning. The author included the concept __ in paragraph _, where he has used it too narrowly. The author states in paragraph__, “__”. However, the concept is one of the most pervasive and convincing issues raised against the author’s argument. (give evidence) So how could the author not apply more weight on this more significantly. The author has included a concept in his article that he has failed to give proper recognition and credence to. (give more evidence). Therefore the author has failed to ensure the appropriate characteristics given to the concept, by using it to narrowly in the context of his/her argument. One might pose to the author that ____. Thus, the author has failed to give enough recognition to something as important as the concept, and has therefore, used it too narrowly in the context of the article. Step 6.3: Are The Concepts Consistently Used? “Author” has equivocated on the concept of ___ in # separate paragraphs, and I therefore thought it would be interesting and necessary to discuss them. P1 “concept” is used in the sense …P2 “concept” is used in the sense …P3 “concept” is used in the sense... “Author” uses the concept of ____ which has equivocated in meaning in # separate paragraphs. In paragraph _, the author states, “Evidence 1” Here, “Author” is saying that “explanation to P1”. Then “Author” goes on to say in paragraph _, “Evidence 2” Here “Author” is saying that “explanation to P2”. The author has slid between two meanings of the same word, and has thus, committed the fallacy of equivocation. Further, in paragraph _, “Author” states, “Evidence 3.” In this premise, “Author” has equivocated on the concept of ____ because “explanation to P3”. Thus, “Author” has failed to give a compelling argument in paragraphs ? because she/he has equivocated in meaning between the concepts of ____. His structure is therefore invalid, and a violation of the criterion of a well formed argument. Step 6.4: Can Their Weaknesses Be Strengthened? The author uses the term ___ (¶_), where he has created a compelling argument and explanation of this term. In paragraph _, “Author” writes: “Evidence” His argument is
More Less

Related notes for MODR 1770

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit