Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Analysis and evaluation, Assignments of Humanities

The second part to the analysis and evaluation.

Typology: Assignments

2021/2022

Available from 03/21/2022

crism7
crism7 🇺🇸

8 documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Analysis and Evaluation Continued
CRITICAL READING AND WRITING
I. Read the passage below and answer the following questions:
1. What is the claim (conclusion) being argued for in this passage?
The claim is that David Oates believes that people have a hidden message behind all their
speeches. He believes that it is unintentional. “There is no scientific evidence for the
phenomena of reverse speech; and that the use of reverse speech as lie detection in courts
of law or any other forum, as advocated by Oates, is entirely invalid and unjust” (Schick
and Vaughn, 2011, p. 60).
2. What premise or premises are used to support the conclusion?
The messages can be understood by recording normal speech and playing it in reverse.
“To our knowledge there is not one empirical investigation of reverse speech in any peer-
reviewed journal” (p. 60).
3. Is the argument inductive or deductive?
I think the argument is inductive because since there is no evidence to support the claim,
but no evidence to say that it is false, it is not proven true or false. “Although descriptions
of “research papers” are available on the Reverse Speech Web site, there is no good
indication that Oates has conducted any scholarly or empirical investigation” (p. 60).
4. Assuming that the premise or premises are true, is the argument a
good one?
Yes, since the conclusion cannot be false.
5. Do you believe that reverse speech exists? Why or why not?
No, there is not enough scientific data to back the claim up.
II. In a 200-word paper, answer this question: What evidence would persuade you to accept the
proposition that reverse speech is a real phenomenon and that it can be useful as a lie detector in
courts of law? Explain in detail why the evidence would justify your acceptance of the
proposition.
I would need solid evidence, statistics, and data to see that the reverse speech is real. I would
want to see the studies done. I am a skeptical because of lack of evidence for the reversed
speech. I would believe that reverse speech would exist if scientists would use random sampling
pf2

Partial preview of the text

Download Analysis and evaluation and more Assignments Humanities in PDF only on Docsity!

Analysis and Evaluation Continued CRITICAL READING AND WRITING I. Read the passage below and answer the following questions:

  1. What is the claim (conclusion) being argued for in this passage? The claim is that David Oates believes that people have a hidden message behind all their speeches. He believes that it is unintentional. “There is no scientific evidence for the phenomena of reverse speech; and that the use of reverse speech as lie detection in courts of law or any other forum, as advocated by Oates, is entirely invalid and unjust” (Schick and Vaughn, 2011, p. 60).
  2. What premise or premises are used to support the conclusion? The messages can be understood by recording normal speech and playing it in reverse. “To our knowledge there is not one empirical investigation of reverse speech in any peer- reviewed journal” (p. 60).
  3. Is the argument inductive or deductive? I think the argument is inductive because since there is no evidence to support the claim, but no evidence to say that it is false, it is not proven true or false. “Although descriptions of “research papers” are available on the Reverse Speech Web site, there is no good indication that Oates has conducted any scholarly or empirical investigation” (p. 60).
  4. Assuming that the premise or premises are true, is the argument a good one? Yes, since the conclusion cannot be false.
  5. Do you believe that reverse speech exists? Why or why not? No, there is not enough scientific data to back the claim up. II. In a 200-word paper, answer this question: What evidence would persuade you to accept the proposition that reverse speech is a real phenomenon and that it can be useful as a lie detector in courts of law? Explain in detail why the evidence would justify your acceptance of the proposition. I would need solid evidence, statistics, and data to see that the reverse speech is real. I would want to see the studies done. I am a skeptical because of lack of evidence for the reversed speech. I would believe that reverse speech would exist if scientists would use random sampling

of people that are willing to participate in this study. They could record and interview each participant to test out this phenomenon. If scientists would test the phenomenon by using random sampling this would be a great way to show that reverse speech is real. This would allow scientists to make generalizations by using the samples and proving that reverse speech is real. This can also help them make generalizations about the populations they are studying. Whether that be a large sample of the population or a small sample. Studies showing that reverse speech accurately portrays what a person is subconsciously saying would be the first step to justify my acceptance of the proposition. Additionally, I feel sound deductive reasoning is also needed to provide support for the claim that reverse speech is real. Sound deductive reasoning means making valid arguments with true premises. Personally, I feel hypothetical induction, or inference to the best explanation does not provide enough support for a phenomena. Thus, I feel sound deductive reasoning is more accurate and would be needed to convince the courts of law that reverse speech can be useful as a lie detector. References Schick, T., & Vaughn, L. (2011). How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a new age. (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill