Essay Instructions: Attn: Writer - Mishel Hawas
Message to SNRINFO:
Please kindly contact the writer (Mishel Hawas) to paper this custom term paper.
Thank you.
Susan Ubaka
Dear Writer (Mishel Hawas)
Please find below are the exact instructions for this custom term paper, I''ll be specific as much as possible (There are a total of 4 - different assignments). Please if you have any questions regarding this custom term paper, kindly email me at:
Thank you,
Susan Ubaka
EXACT INSTRUCTIONS:
Chapter Six Assignments:
Chapter Six discusses LANGUAGE which drives our thinking or as Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of Four, our Brainwork. As you read the chapter, note what is written about Connotative, Symmetrical, Asymmetrical, and Loaded Language as well as Ambiguity.
Assignment 1 - (1 page)
Exercise/Question:
A. Read the newspaper excerpt "Victims of a Meaningless Show of Force" (page 152) and write a one page analysis of the author''s use of language.
B. Explain how the author uses Connotative Language and whether you think the article is Symmetrical or Asymmetrical?
NEWSPAPER EXCERPT:
"Victims of a Meaningless Show of Force"
by Geraldine Q. Ruthchild
On the night of May 19, 1987, New York City police, responding to reports of screams ing from Prospect Park Zoo in Brooklyn, found two polar bears fighting over the already dismembered body of an 11-year-old boy. They could see the clothing of three children within the bears'' enclosure; they had seen two children walking toward them when a zookeeper led them onto the grounds of the closed zoo. The children had run away before the police could question them.
Seeing the bears and the body of Juan Perez within the cage, the four police offiers emptied twenty blasts from a 12-gauge shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver into the animals, killing them. In the aftermath of the tradgedy, hundreds of people called the police to mourn over and plain about the shooting of the polar bears.
Apparently unprepared for such outpouring of sympathy for the bears, the New York Times and other leading publications saw fit to refer dismissively to the callers protesting the bear killings as "animal lovers". That epithet implies that their objections were founded upon the dogmatism of an extremist group ruled by sentiment. On the contrary, the people who took the time to register a protest seem to me far more likely to have been motivated by appreciation of logic, a mittment to fairness, and a belief in practical rather than merely symbolic action. I am in sympathy with their reaction.
Polar bears, extremely territorial by nature, are kept in Prospect Park Zoo in a very small area-exacerbating, as one might easily imgine, their fierce protectiveness of their space. To protect the public, zoo architects had erected high fences topped by spikes, so forbidding-looking that it is impossible for anyone, even a child, not to understand that the bears are very likely dangerous.
Into this environment entered three children, who admit they were taunting the bears; who, in addition to scaling that fence and climbing over those spikes and invading that territory, were throwing rocks at the animals. For they bears to attack the child who did not run away fast enough was for them simply to be acting as bears naturally act.
By the time the police arrived, Juan Perez was plainly dead, clearly beyond saving. Yet the police emptied two firearms into the bears, shooting them over and over until they were dead. Killing the bears was not a logical act, for it was not-and the police have admitted they knew it was not-going to bring Juan Perez back. It was certainly not a fair act, because the bears had been behaving not only instinctively but under provocation.
Further, it was not a practical act, for it acplised absolutely nothing-not even the protection of the other children whose clothing was in the cage, for the police had seen them leaving the zoo when they entered. It seems, therefore, that the shooting was merely a symbolic act, designed to show the public that the police were not going to stand by helplessly. But the truth is that it was too late for help. All that was achieved was the killing of two of God''s creatures, who had been provoked by taunts and rocks.
I object to the killing of the polar bears on the grounds that it was illogical, unfair, and a meaningless show of force. Presumably, at least some of the hundreds of callers, protesting this act had equally reasoned objections.
Geraldine Q. Ruthchild, Ph.D., is a New York-based freelance writer and consultant. The above is an expanded version of a letter publication by the New York Times on June 4, 1987.
Reprinted from THE ANIMALS'' AGENDA,
P.O. Box 5234, Westport, CT 06881.
END OF ASSIGNMENT 1
ASSIGNMENT 2 - (1 page)
DISCUSSION BOARD FORUM TOPIC FOUR: ask you to examine the author''s strengths and weaknesses in her article. "Victims of a Meaningless Show of Force" which is on page 152.
Exercise/Questions: (Assignment 2) (PLEASE NUMBER ANSWERS IN THIS SECTION)
1. Identify and explain some strengths and weaknesses in the thinking of author Geraldine Ruthchild whose article "Victims of a Meaningless Show of Force" is on page 152.
* Who are the victims?
* How can language influence?
(Use the Standards of Reasoning and the Obstacles to Clear Thinking as the basis of your analysis).
2. How do we, as critical thinkers, keep the barriers/obstacles that may impede our reasoning under control? Post your ideas.
3. Cite a recent news article that you have read/listened to that is a relevant example of LANGUAGE and how it influences. Post your ideas/observations.
(Notes on - STANDARDS OF REASONING:
The Standards of Reasoning provide a specific method to assess thinking. Understanding these standards will enable you to evaluate decisions, writings, arguments, etc, made by you and others.
The specific standards are CLARITY, PRECISION, ACCURACY, DEPTH, BREADTH, RELEVANCE, LOGICALNESS, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS.
To assess your thinking and the thinking of others, ask yourself the following questions:
CLARITY
Do you say/write what you mean?
Can you provide examples to further explain ideas?
Is there any idea that needs more elaboration?
** Clarity is necessary to all forms of thinking**
ACCURACY
Is this the way things are?
Are the ideas true?
How can I verify the information I am using?
PRECISION
Am I as specific as possible?
What exactly is the problem to solve?
What is the task, assignment, or goal?
Should more details be included?
RELEVANCE
Does the information relate to the purpose?
How this idea connected to the other ideas?
**Relevance is concerned with how the parts related to each other and the whole?**
DEPTH
Are the important ideas fully explained?
Is the issue analysis too superficial?
Are the plexieties of the issue explored?
BREADTH
Have all the relevant viewpoints been considered?
Is that analysis too one-sided?
What would be another pertinent viewpoint to analyze?
LOGICALNESS
Does the analysis/explanation make sense?
Does the overall point/purpose relate to the individual parts/ideas?
Are all the ideas consistent with intent/purpose?
SIGNIFICANCE
What is the most significant information/facts needed to analyze this issue?
Which questions are the most significant?
Which ideas and concepts are most important?
FAIRNESS
Is my thinking justified given the evidence?
Am I considering the evidence other viewpoints might include in the situation?
Am I addressing the problem fairly or is my vested interest preventing me from examining the problem from other points of view?
To be a clear thinker, all of the standards must be present.
(Notes on - BARRIERS/OBSTACLES TO CLEAR THINKING)
Additional Obstacles -
There are other obstacles called DEFENSE MECHANISMS: -psychological coping strategies. While these defense mechanisms can be protective for a short time, they bee problematic when/if they distort or confuse our thinking.
Denial: Refusal to accept an unpleasant reality.
Projection: Seeing in others a part of ourselves that we cannot accept and do not recognize.
Rationalization: Distorted thinking that attempts to justify behavior usually motivated by self-interest or unacceptable behavior. Lying to oneself about the real reasons for our behavior and feelings.
**Of all the defense mechanisms, this one is perhaps the greatest inhibitor to clear thinking.
Polarized Thinking: Dichotomous thinking that only allows for two options. Limits thinking to either-or, when other options may exist.
Overgeneralization: Drawing a broad conclusion on the basis of one or two few incidences/examples.
Catastrophizing: Considering the worst possible oute for an event.
Selective Abstraction: Focusing on one detail of a situation and ignoring the big picture.
**One of the best ways to understand and remember the obstacles is to think of a specific example that has meaning to you for each obstacle.
END OF ASSIGNMENT 2
ASSIGNMENT 3 - (1 page)
Select one of the five excerpts on page 159-162 to read and respond to either question 1 or 3 on page 159.
EXCERCISE/QUESTIONS: (please indicate which excerpt & question you are answering- thanks!
Here are five excerpts from works that have inspired political and religious action. Select one of the passages and read it carefully to see its power and ability to transform lives.
Write a brief analysis of the use of language, focusing on one of these issues:
Question 1:
How the language is inspiring
OR
Question 3:
What the writer seems to assume.
READINGS: (of the five excerpts.....)
The Gettsburg Address
by Abraham Lincoln
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have e to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate-we cannot consecrate-we cannot hallow-this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecreated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
The Sun My Heart
by Thich Nhat Hanh
Peace can exist only in the present moment. It is ridiculous to say, "Wait unit I finish this, then I will be free to live in peace." What is "this"? A diploma, a job, a house, the payment of a debt? If you think that way, peace will never e. There is always another "this" that will follow the present one. If you are not living in peace at this moment, you will never be able to. If you truly want to be at peace, you must be at peace right now. Otherwise, there is only "the hope of peace some day."
...The peace we seek cannot be our personal possession. We need to find an inner peace which makes it possible for us to bee one with those who suffer, and to do something to help our brothers and sisters, which is to say, ourselves. I know many young people who are aware of the real situation of the world and who filled with passion. They refuse to hide themselves in artificial peace, and they engage in the world in order to change the society. They know what they want, yet after a period of involvement they bee discouraged. Why? It is because they lack deep, inner peace, the kind of peace they can take with them into their life of action. Our strength is in our peace, the peace within us. This peace makes us indestructible. We must have peace while taking care of those we love and those we want to protect.
Proclamation of the Delano Grape Workers
We have been farm workers for hundreds of years and pioneers for seven. Mexicans, Filipinos, Africans, and others, our ancestors were among those who founded this land and tamed its natural wilderness. But we are still pilgrims on this land, and we are pioneers who blaze a trail out of the wilderness of hunger and deprivation that we have suffered even as our ancestors did. We are conscious today of the significance of our present quest. If this road we chart leads to the rights and reforms we demand, if it leads to just wages, human working conditions, protection from the misuse of pesticides, and to the fundamental right of collective bargainning, if it changes the social order that relegates us to the bottom reaches of society, then in our wake will follow thousands of American farm workers. Our example will make them free. But if our road does not bring us to victory and social change, it will not be because our direction is mistaken or our resolve too weak, but only because our bodies are mortal and our journey hard. For we are in the midst of a great social movement, and we will not stop struggling ''til we die, or win!
...Grapes must remain an unenjoyed luxury for all as long as the barest human needs and basic human rights are still luxuries for farm the vines, but they will have to wait while we reach out first for our freedom. The time is ripe for our liberation.
Negro Hopes for Emancipation
by John S. Rock
The situation of the black man in this country is far from being an enviable one. Today, our heads are in the lino''s mouth, and we must get them out the best way we can. To contend against the government is as difficult as it is to sit in Rome and fight with the pope. Iti is probable that, if we had the malice of the Anglo-Saxon, we would watch our chances and seize the first opportunity to take our revenge. If we attempted this, the odds would be against us, and the first thing we should know would be-nothing! The most of us are capable of perceiving that the man who spits against the wind spits in his own face!
...This nation is mad. In its devoted attachment to the Negro, it has run crazy after him; and now, having caught him, hangs on with a deadly grasp, and says to him, with more earnestness and pathos than Ruth expressed to Naomi, "Where thou goest, I will go; where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God."
...This rebellion for slavery means something! Out of it emancipation must spring. I do not agree with those men who see no hope in this war. There is nothing in it but hope. Our cause is onward. As it is with the sun, the clouds often obstruct his vision, but in the end, we find there has been no standing still. It is true the government is but little more antislavery now than it was at the mencement of the war; but while fighting its own existence, it has been obliged to take slavery by the throat and, sooner or later, must choke her to death.
The Natural Rights of Civilized Women
by Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Now, gentlemen, do you talk to woman of a rude jest or jostle at the polls where noble, virtuous men stand ready to protect her person and her rights, when alone in the darkeness and solitude and gloom of night she has tremble on her own threshold awaiting the return of a husband from his midnight revels?... The fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast is far too often realized in life. Gentlemen, such scenes as woman has witnessed at her own fireside where no eye save Omnipotence could pity, no strong arm could help, can never be realized at the polls, never equaled elsewhere this side of the bottomless pit. No,woman has not hitherto lived in the clouds surrounded by an atmosphere of purity and peace; but she has been the panion of man in health, in sickness, and in death, in his highest and in his lowest moments. She has worshipped him as a saint and an orator, and pitied him as a madman or a fool.
In paradise man and woman were placed together, and so they must ever be. They must sink or rise together. If man is low and wretched and vile, woman cannot escape the contagion, and any atmosphere that is unfit for woman to breath is not fit for man. Verily, the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children to the third or fourth generation. You, by your unwise legislation, have crippled and dwarfed womanhood by closing to her all honorable and lucrative means of employment, have driven her into the garrets and dens of our cities where she now revenges herself on your innocent sons, sapping the very foundations of national virtue and strength. Alas! For the young men just ing on the stage of action who soon shall fill your vacant places, our future senators, our presidents, the expounders of our constitutional law! Terrible are the penalties we are now suffering for the ages of injustice done to women.
END OF ASSIGNMENT 3.
ASSIGNMENT 4 - (1 page)
Answer questions 1-3 about "What is a Reasonable Doubt?" on pages 148-149.
EXERCISE/QUESTION;
Below are three different interpretations of the concept of "reasonable doubt."
Read each and then answer these questions:
1. What is the difference between these three interpretations?
2. Which one do you think is best (or would you remend we use)? Explain Why.
3. Why did you reject the other two? Explain what is deficient or unsatisfactory in the two concepts you rejected.
READINGS:
What Is a Reasonable Doubt?
While the Government must prove a criminal defendant''s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it is easier for judges and lawyers to invoke the concept of "reasonable doubt" than to define it. The Supreme Court, which has grappled with the issue over the years, today rejected constitutional challenges to two varieties of reasonable doubt instructions in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O''Connor that traced the history and growing ambiguity of some long-used phrases. These instructions, given to juries in California and Nebraska, differed somewhat from instructions the Court found unconstitutional in a 1990 case. Here are excerpts from one set of instructions upheld today, along with those the Court declared unconstitutional in 1990 and proposed set of instructions, published by the Federal Judicial Center, that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited with approval in her concurring opinion. Italics are the Court''s, indicating phrases on which the Court focused.
Instructions Upheld Today
Sandoval v. California (1994): "Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire parison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge."
Found Unconstitutional: 1990
Cage v. Louisiana (1990): "Even where the evidence demonstrates a probability of guilt, if it does not establish such guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit the accused. This doubt, however, must be a reasonable one; that is one that is founded upon a real tangible substantial basis and not upon mere caprice or conjuncture. It must be such doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty, raised in your mind by reasons of the unsatisfactory character of the evidence or lack thereof. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt. It is an actual substantial doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable man can seriously entertain. What is required is not an absolute or mathematic certainty, but a moral certainty."
A Different Approach
Proposed by the Federal Judicial Center, the research arm of the Federal judiciary:
"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant''s guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilt of the crime charged, you must find him guilty. If on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty."
New York Times, 23 Mar. 1994.
How we define "reasonable doubt" is important. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remends that states consider a model jury instruction suggest in 1987 that reads: "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant''s guilt." An even more succint set of instructions is used in France. There the panel of judges and lay people are asked to consider this question: "Are you thoroughly convinced?" (as noted by Neil A. Lewis, "At the Bar," New York Times, 27 Jan. 1995). The question "Are you thoroughly convinced?" gives us a simple and seemingly effective way to clarify the "reasonable doubt" criteria.
END OF ASSIGNMENT 4.
