English task

Assignment Purpose: In this course, our topic is: What flaws in the critical thinking process do individuals, groups, politicians and entire governments make so that tyrants are able to rise to power? Previously, to help us answer this question, we explored how Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) rose to power; this week we’re going to explore what “critical thinking” is by deciding whether the 1933 Vatican Concordant with Hitler’s Third Reich  was the result of thinking critically on the part of the Vatican.

Directions: To help you decide whether the Roman Catholic Church engaged in critical thinking when Eugenio Pascelli (future Pope Pius XII) arranged for and signed the 1933 Concordant with the Third Reich, …

1.  Research credible sources (not Wikipedia!) on the Internet to review what critical thinking is.

2.  Use Gale’s Opposing Viewpoints in Context (West library databases to research the 1933 Concordant (helpful search term: Hitler’s Pope).  

Then … in 1,250 words (five double-spaced pages in Times-New Roman font, size 12) …

1.  Explain what critical thinking is and whether the 1933 Concordant was the result of critical thinking.

2.  Learn who Edith Stein was, introduce her, write about her thoughts in regard to the Concordant, and explain how she died.

3.  Define these terms in your essay: concordant, Vatican, Vatican City-State, Holy See, and Roman Catholic.

4.  Additionally, tell your readers when Roman Catholicism began, how many Germans were Roman Catholics in 1933, what leading Nazi figures were from Roman Catholic families, how many Germans are Roman Catholic in 2018, and the estimated world population of Roman Catholics in 2018.

Requirements:

1. Include a minimum of four quotes from sources you research, in correct MLA format, 8th edition.

2. Use correct MLA format, 8th Edition; 

3. Read the college-level essay in Chapter 1 of our textbook THIS LITTLE BOOK About How to Write a College-Level Essay, and read the college-level essay examples in Chapter 3. You will need to write the same kind of college-level essay, one that is NOT a Five-Paragraph Essay and that contains a variety of paragraphs.

4.  Remember … you are not writing to me or to your peers; don’t refer to anything taking place in this class.  You are writing to a broad reader group that may NOT be familiar with Hitler or his Nazi government.  Articulate your ideas clearly, and provide any necessary background information for your readers to follow your thoughts.  See the helpful video below about how to develop a rhetorical focus for your essay.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-21443313
http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en.html
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-german-churches-and-the-nazi-state
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-critical-thinking-definition-skills-meaning.html
  • Posted: 12 Hours Ago
  • Due: 17/01/2019
  • Budget: $50

Finding Memeing

We have now read about script analysis and read two plays.  So it’s your turn to try your hand at analysis!

A theme is a single sentence that expresses the central statement or lesson that the audience can gain from watching this play.  Themes apply to the specific play, but are also universal, lessons that apply to our daily lives.  So, while “Always listen to ghosts” applies to Hamlet, it doesn’t necessarily apply universally to all our lives. 

A meme is a symbol ofan idea that consists of a background image and related text.  

  • You will create two memes that express the theme of each play, A Raisin in the Sun and Andre’s Mother, one image for each play.  
  • Please submit either links to your images or the images themselves in a word document.
  • Also include a description of your meme, how you came up with the idea, and how it relates to each play.  The combination of image and thematic statement you choose will create an overall message about how you see the play.  This justifying paragraph should be 200 words minimum for each meme.

Need A Paper Written For PHI208 Ethics Details Listed Below

My ethic question that I have chosen is: Should a woman have the right to an abortion if we recognize the fetus has a person?

Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read Chapter 1 of the textbook. This chapter will introduce you to the basic form and subject matter of ethical reasoning and assist you as you select an ethical question, examine the context, issues, and arguments surrounding the question, and attempt to defend an answer to the question. 

Preview the document
Preview the document
Preview the document
Preview the document

Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper as they contain very precise and specific instructions on both the content and format requirements. You should download the provided outline and use that to structure your paper, as well as consult the assignment guidance and modeled example for additional help. Finally, before submitting your assignment please use the checklist to ensure that you have completed all of the requirements.

Overview

This course has three written assignments that build upon one another and are designed to take you step-by-step through a process of writing a paper that identifies an ethical question, examines the context, issues, and arguments surrounding the question, and attempts to defend an answer to that question using strong moral reasoning.

This first written assignment is a six-part exercise comprised of the following sections:

  1. Ethical Question
  2. Introduction
  3. Position Statement
  4. Reasons in Support of Your Position
  5. Opposing Position Statement
  6. Reasons in Support of the Opposing Position

The assignment should be 500 words, written in essay form, with six clearly labeled sections as indicated below, and include a title page and reference page.

Part 1: Ethical Question

Before writing the paper, you will need to spend some time thinking about the specific ethical issue you want to focus on throughout this course.

  • Begin this task by viewing the list of approved ethical topics and questions provided in the Week 1 Announcement titled: “Written Assignment Ethical Topics and Questions List.” Take some time looking over the list and browsing through some of the material in the corresponding chapters of the textbook in which each topic is addressed and decide which to focus on.
  • Once you have done this, choose one of the ethical questions associated with that topic. If you wish to do so, you may formulate your own ethical question, but it must be on one of the topics listed in the announcement. Be sure to carefully study the provided questions and model your own question after them in terms of specificity and ethical focus.”

Place the ethical question under the Part 1: Ethical Question heading at the top of the paper.

Part 2: Introduction

In this section of your paper, you should introduce the topic and question at issue by doing the following (not necessarily in this exact order):

  • Explain its relevance and importance.
  • Define any key terms and concepts.
  • Provide any relevant context and background information.
  • Briefly reference an idea, quote, or analysis of the issue that you have found in one of the required resources on the topic.  Required resources include the textbook chapter focused on that topic (6, 7, 8, 9, or 10), the “Primary Sources” listed at the end of Chapters 6-9, and the “readings listed under “Further Reading” at the end of each section in Chapter 10.

The introduction will be the longest section of this assignment and should be at least 300 words in one or two paragraphs. Place the introduction material under the Part 2: Introduction.

Part 3: Position Statement

Your work on the introduction section has likely unearthed various positions one might take on the ethical question you have chosen. In this section, you will formulate a position statement.

  • A position statement is a one sentence statement that articulates your position on the issue and directly answers the question you have raised. For example, if the question was, “What is a physician’s obligation with respect to telling the truth to his or her patients?” a position statement might be “A physician may never directly lie to a patient, but it may be moral for a physician to withhold information if the physician reasonably believes doing so directly benefits the patient.” A different position statement might be: “A physician may use any means necessary, including lying to a patient, if the physician believes that will produce the best overall results.” However, the following statement would not be a sufficient position statement: “A physician must always respect the rights of his or her patients.” The reason this is not a sufficient position statement is that it does not directly answer the question concerning truth telling.
  • Think of the position statement as the strongest claim you would make if you were a prosecuting attorney making your opening statement to a jury, where you want to state precisely and directly the position you want them to believe.

Place the position statement under the Part 3: Position Statement heading.

Part 4: Reasons in Support of Your Position

Now that you have articulated a position on the issue, write a short paragraph—just a few sentences—that presents and explains one or two of the strongest reasons in support of your position statement.

  • You want your supporting reason to explain why someone should support the position you are taking on the ethical question. A supporting reason is a consideration that helps to show why your position is stronger than another position.
  • One way to approach this is to imagine yourself in friendly conversation with someone who does not necessarily agree with your position (perhaps they disagree, or perhaps they are undecided). When you state your position, they might ask why you think that; the kind of response you would give is a supporting reason.
  • Supporting reasons can include many things including, but not limited to: an appeal to moral principles such as duty, justice, fairness and equality; the positive or negative effects of certain actions on policies; or a summary of facts, statistics or evidence and an explanation of how they support your view.

Place the supporting reason(s) under the Part 4: Reasons in Support of Your Position heading.

Part 5: Opposing Position Statement

Now that you have provided reasons to support your position statement, in this section you will take a step back from all of that and articulate a statement that expresses an opposing or contrary statement.

  • Think of the opposing position statement as the strongest claim you would make if you were the defense attorney making your opening statement to the jury immediately after they have heard the prosecutor’s statement.

Place the opposing position statement under the Part 5: Opposing Position Statement heading.

Part 6: Reasons in Support of the Opposing Position

In this section, write a short paragraph—just a few sentences—that presents and explains one or two of the strongest reasons in support of the opposing position statement.

  • A strong opposing reason is a reason anyone would need to consider, even if they do not agree with the opposing position.
  • In other words, do not simply contradict claims that you make in Part 4, especially factual claims! You should strive to identify and articulate considerations in support of the opposing position that you think are accurate and true, or at least plausible, even if you still believe your own position has the most support overall.
  • If the reason(s) in support of the opposing position are ones you consider obviously false or indefensible, you should look for better reasons.
  • Put yourself in the position of a defense attorney who has to make the best possible case to the jury in defense of his or her client.

Place the opposing reasons under the Part 6: Reasons in Support of the Opposing Position heading.

In your paper,

  • Identify the ethical question.
  • Introduce the topic and question.
  • Formulate a position statement.
  • Explain the strongest reasons in support of the position statement.
  • Formulate an opposing position statement.
  • Explain the strongest reasons in support of the opposing position statement.

The Ethical Question paper

  • Must be 500 to 600 words in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. resource.
  • Must include a separate title page with the following: 
    • Title of paper
    • Student’s name
    • Course name and number
    • Instructor’s name
    • Date submitted

Evaluation Essay

For this assignment, you will write your evaluation essay. You are required to submit only your final draft for this assignment (though we encourage all students to take advantage of the additional feedback a draft can provide). Use the grader’s feedback and the rubric to make revisions to your draft before submitting the final. Your second draft will be graded.

Now that you have completed Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, you are in a good position to consider what critics have written about the novel. You will need a total of two critiques (also known as critical analysis essays) for this assignment.

First, use the selection of links below to locate a critical analysis essay written about the 1818 version of Mary Shelley’s novel. You may focus most of your attention on this first critique.

Choose from among these sources:

The questions in the study guides should have helped you evaluate this criticism in your head. Now it’s time to write it down!

Your evaluation may go more smoothly if you approach the guiding questions in this order:

Evaluate the critic/author:

Who wrote the criticism you read? What credentials does the author have? (If you are using a valid source, you should be able to find these easily; these details are usually just before or at the end of the essay.)

Find the thesis of the article:

What is the thesis of the critical article you’ve chosen? What point does the author want to make about Frankenstein?

Evaluate the thesis:

Do you agree with this thesis? Why or why not? We’ve covered many ideas in the study guides. Can you find points within the guides that support your agreement or disagreement with the critical writer(s)? Look for new supporting information rather than revisiting the same ones the critics have chosen.

Evaluate the support:

Whether you agree or disagree with the thesis, does the critic provide sufficient research from the text and outside references to make a strong case? What does the article have for support from the text or outside sources? In your opinion, what makes these references valid? Do you feel the author uses this support properly?

Next, locate a second critique about the novel that includes ideas somewhat similar (genre classification, for instance) to any of the discussions you have in your essay. The second critique can either support or refute any of the claims in your paper. The objective of this portion of the essay is to further support your opinion of the primary critic’s thesis or support. Therefore, for example, if you choose a secondary article that refutes any of your claims, you will need to counteract those ideas to bring the focus of your essay back in alignment with your essay’s thesis (your personal opinion of how the primary critic is either correct or incorrect in his or her thesis claim and/or how the first critic is either effective or ineffective in his or her support). Every discussion in this essay should ultimately support the claim you make in your thesis.

For instance, if the first critic argues that Shelley’s writing is juvenile, and if you agree, does the second critic also support this thesis? How so? If the second critic does not support your assessment of the first critic’s thesis, what evidence can you use from the text to argue that the second critic is incorrect? Consider another example: if the first critic believes the novel is autobiographical, and if you disagree, does the second critic help you argue you own view of the first critic’s thesis? If so, how? Perhaps the second critic disagrees with your view and feels the novel is autobiographical– if that’s the case, be prepared to use evidence from the text to refute the second critic’s thesis and support your own argument. Using two critiques in this way will allow you to create a polished, comprehensive Evaluation Essay that allows you to connect your own ideas to those of seasoned critics.

In addition to addressing each of the evaluative components above, develop your essay so it has a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. You must include an evaluative thesis statement both the introduction and the conclusion. Ensure that each of your claims are supported with valid evidence from the literary criticism you have chosen,the novel, Frankenstein, and/or the study guides.

Using proper MLA2 style, insert parenthetical citations for all borrowed information in addition to a Works Cited page for Frankenstein and your chosen literary critiques; you are not required to cite the study guides if you use them.

Helpful Hints: For a thesis statement, try answering a question like: How and how well does this piece of criticism state and support its argument regarding Frankenstein?

You might use these as possible guidelines in crafting your thesis statement:
(Critic, aka author of the critique) uses (add critic title) to (add an adjective to describe the effectiveness of the argument such as “adequately” or “inadequately”) argue that (add critic’s thesis) by (explain why and/or include your support).
OR
(Critic)’s (add critique title) (add an adjective to describe the effectiveness of the argument such as “adequately” or “inadequately”) argue that (add critic’s thesis) because (explain why and/or include your support).

More specific thesis examples:

John Smith uses “Frankenstein Critique Essay” to adequately argue that Victor’s mother created the first monster by coddling Victor as a boy.
OR
John Smith’s “Frankenstein Critique Essay” does not effectively argue that Victor’s mother created the first monster because the novel Frankenstein too strongly supports inherent good or bad, which means nurturing roles cannot be held responsible.

The guidelines for this assignment are:

Length: This assignment should be a minimum of 3 typed pages or at least 750 words.

Header: Include a header in the upper left-hand corner of your writing assignment with the following information:

  • Your first and last name 
  • Course Title (Composition II)
  • Assignment name (Evaluation Essay, Writing Assignment 4)
  • Current Date

Format:

  • MLA-style source documentation and Works Cited
  • Your last name and page number in the upper-right corner of each page 
  • Double-spacing throughout 
  • Standard font (TimesNewRoman, Calibri) 
  • Title, centered after heading 
  • 1” margins on all sides
  • Save the file using one of the following extensions: .docx, .doc, .rtf, or .txt

Underline your thesis statement in the introductory paragraph. 

Reminder: You need at least two critiques in addition to the novel in Works Cited in order to receive the highest score. In other words, you need three sources total in cited in the essay and on the Works Cited page in order to earn the maximum points in the corresponding column on the grading rubric. Failure to meet the source minimum will result in a severe decrease in your grade.