2827 Shares

Find an online argument. Evaluate the use of source material in the argument?

Find an online argument. Evaluate the use of source material in the argument? Topic: Conclusion dissertation
June 16, 2019 / By Chuck
Question: How does the author introduce quotation, paraphrase, and summary? How often does the author use each method of citing source material? Which method seems most effective?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Find an online argument. Evaluate the use of source material in the argument?

Ami Ami | 10 days ago
After reading the question for the second time i said to myself "i don't get this as the beer is doing me ed in" but i continued to look on google and drink some more beer. The beer had gone to my head, that is, the brain was not allowed to work well. In summary i looked on wiki A written summary starts with a lead, including title, author, text type and the main idea of the text. It has a clearly arranged structure and is written in a logical, chronological and traceable manner. In contrast to a résumé or a review, a summary contains neither interpretation nor rating. Only the opinion of the original writer is reflected – paraphrased with new words without quotations from the text. Unlike a retelling, a summary has no dramatic structure and is written in present tense or historic present. Because summaries should be significantly shorter than the original, minor facts have to be left out. However all major conclusions should remain. In summaries only indirect speech is used and depictions are avoided. Summaries of books or dissertations present the major facts in common scientific language and should be about from a half up to one page long.
👍 188 | 👎 10
Did you like the answer? Find an online argument. Evaluate the use of source material in the argument? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Conclusion dissertation


Ami Originally Answered: Would you agree that this argument nullifies the teleological argument for gods existence?
Agreed. Your logic is definitely sound. Though, I recommend you stop trying to contend with Theists, well most of them at least. They are young souls, and require such closed minded structure in their lives in order to operate. With out said structure, this world would be for more of a pain in the *** then it already is. Imagine introducing a school full of undisciplined toddlers into a Five Star Restaurant on its most important time of the year and whilst telling them their are Easter eggs to be found under ever table. Look up, not down. Below you is the confined structure of the heavy duty religions, you are beyond the point of requiring a tit to suckle on, and ready to explore the universe. Yes, we adapted to our universe, but the universe had an intention with it all. One must consider that if we are conscious, the universe could also possibly be conscious, though not necessarily in the manner we understand it in our current physical forms. Take a look at a picture of the known universe. Kind of similar to nerves or what have you in the brain. Just saying... All is possible, and all is happening at exactly the same time everywhere in the universe. Some just choose to call that "God" and limit there focus and understanding of what is around them to a very small circle they draw around themselves.
Ami Originally Answered: Would you agree that this argument nullifies the teleological argument for gods existence?
The teleological argument proposes that existence of underlining ideas that permit for the existence of materialistic structure suggests the existence of a deliberate intent for the existence of material existence that it's going to serve some underlining reason or finish. Though it may be that this argument does have some merit there may be as of yet no sound and legitimate argument connecting it to any person faith or anthropomorphous deity of those religions. The cosmological argument is an argument for an uncaused purpose that initiated all causal forces. It does no longer straight assert that the uncaused rationale ought to be a certain deity. And it assumes that the perception of causality necessitates an uncaused cause. It was formulated extra so that you could restrict countless regress when discussing the existence of known reality. Neither argument is provided as proof of gods existence, but as an alternative as evidence that suggests that the inspiration of god is a philosophical possibility. Philosophically the arguments themselves can't in any cheap means (excluding circumstantial coincedence) be obvious as supporting any devout claims in the case of the character or intent of the possibly existent god. The arguments only serve to illustrate that the as a idea God could exist inside the context of unique definitions. The definition nevertheless would be in critical conflict with many fundamental devout connotations of the word god, as the arguments themselves attribute no anthropomorphic sympathy or traits to the term god as a proposal.
Ami Originally Answered: Would you agree that this argument nullifies the teleological argument for gods existence?
I do agree with you. However there is another argument to be made. There were basically 1,000,000 different ways that we could have evolved and turned out, why did we turn out this exact way. When you were born there is another million different ways that you could have turned out differently. Then why did you turn out the way you did without any guidance. There are so many different genetic combinations that could have been made dominant and suppressed why were those certain genes chosen in that genetic code. It cannot be so random because if it were we would have absolute chaos in our genetic structure. Honestly, In my opinion we are all walking miracles because for the human race to turn out like it did there had to have been some sort of guidance. Additional details: I don't think it is a bad argument at all considering that sometimes random isn't random at all. It also isn't random when the dice are loaded. This is an argument I heard in my biology class that the teacher made. She said it a bit more intellectually so I am paraphrasing. I think if we didn't have guidance then we would have turned out very differently. Because, we are not the strongest, or the fastest, or even the smartest when it comes to survivability in this world. Raccoons are smarter than us when it comes to surviving in the wild. So, how did we get to this point without any guidance.

Till Till
ok I absolutely have considered a large type of suggestions and invites to communicate, yet even as challenged you're taking the Rove approach and in effortless words start up with the decision calling. you're a pillar of the Republican social amassing, and that is is why a large type of purple states suitable now are turning blue suitable earlier your eyes. For heavens sake you cant even get Ralph Reed elected in Georgia. So pass ahead and save up with the decision calling and the distractions in Congress (flag burning, gay marriage, pledge preserve practices) and ignore on the issue of the issue concerns that remember to the basically suitable public of the human beings, like the pending means disaster, and your means must be lengthy previous earlier you comprehend it. Have a concepts-blowing evening.
👍 70 | 👎 4

Till Originally Answered: What distinguishes Aquinas’ argument “from change” from his argument “from causality”?
Aquinas argues that one should do their own test preparation, instead of having others do it for them. It is called the argument from intelligence. What do you learn if we do the research? Heres a proper answer. Look up his argument from change, and look up his argument from causality, then use your brain.

If you have your own answer to the question conclusion dissertation, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.