State the difference in the styles of forensic, deliberative and epidecitic rhetoric?
456194
Rhetoric is a style of speaking.  The three forms you mention were identified by Aristotle (it's epideictic, by the way).  Forensic rhetoric is speech relating to legal arguments that requires decisions about past actions. Deliberative rhetoric is addressing decisions about future actions and is generally associated with politics. Epideictic rhetoric is speech that isn't associated with making a decision and is ususally classed as ceremonial.
143292
There is an “O” in hypothesis. Spelling is important.\n\nAnyway, and abstract is just a short summary of what you did and what you found, typically one or two paragraphs. Without knowing what you did it’s hard to describe in more detail, but it’s something along the lines of \n\n“Abstract: The legs of 24 people were hacked open using a blunt axe. The victims were observed over the course of 14 days for the development of gangrene. 17 of the 24 victims developed gangrene within 3 days, and 23 of the 24 developed gangrene within the study period. The development of gangrene showed no correlation with the age or weight of the victims.”\n\n\nThe abstract has to be written AFTER you finish the rest of the project since it should contain the essence of everything you did.\n\nThe hypothesis is basically what you believed would happen before you started. More or less what it was you set out to prove. Something like “The chance if developing gangrene from blunt axe wounds increases with the age of the victim”.
347969
It's how you organize a composition or theme paper.\n\nIntroduction: Introduce your topic. This is where you present the idea you intend to prove.\n\nBody: Provide details, information, evidence supporting your point of view. Traditionally, this requires at least three paragraphs, each with a supporting point.\n\nConclusion: Summarize what you have proven and draw a conclusion. This is where you restate how you have proven your thesis/point.\n\nAnother way to look at it is: (1) Say what you're going to say, (2) Say it, and (3) Say what you said.\n\nHere are a few links to get you started:
47653
If this a formal essay paragraph, stay away from idioms such as "pick of the bunch", "friend for all seasons", and "fair-weather one".\n\nDoes the prompt to this paragraph deal with religion or God?  If not, abstain from mentioning that.\n\nAs the other guy said, your conclusion should summarize what you said and restate your thesis, or main point.  You could possibly be relating each characteristic listed in your conclusion to a support previously mentioned, but those don't relate too well.\n\nAnd don't use big words when nice, smaller ones will do.  When people see big words such as cordiality and magnanimity, they just think "huh?" and move on.\n\nExplain your support a little better and clearer.  What does it mean to have one's "moral principles" "in conformity with each other so you have the minimum contrast"?\n\nIf you're going to say a proverb, be sure to explain it and how it supports your thesis.\n\nGood luck editing and hope this helps!
420637
I think you might find that engagement in logic and reasoning is an activity that is undertaken voluntarily, when it suits a particular purpose. The proportion of one's time spent in these activities is not related specifically to intelligence, but to other social factors. For instance, if one doesn't agree with the opinions or beliefs of a particular group of people, it might simply be easier and faster to assume that these people are of lower intelligence, rather than provide any evidence whatsoever of their potential motives for holding those beliefs or opinions, or evidence that they are, in fact, of lower intelligence.\n\nThis doesn't mean that the person him/herself is of lower intelligence for jumping to an easy assumption (in this case, that this particular group of people is of lower average intelligence). This person could have abandoned logic and reason for a variety of reasons. This person could simply be lazy, or heavily biased. In any case, it would be in this person's argument's best interest to actually bring statistical evidence to the table, otherwise there is no real way the claim might be supported (though it might be superficially supported in its current form by those who happen to share the person's particular opinion, for whatever reason). This is not the hallmark of true inquiry; rather, it is the hallmark of true rhetoric. While rhetoric has its place in inquiry and the search for truth, all too often it is passed off AS the truth, an activity which is in no one's best interests except those trying to espouse and spread an opinion that is not based on accepted facts (in this case, that this particular group of people are of lower average intelligence).\n\nSadly, such tactics can at times be construed to be intentional. Sometimes a person might take a personal belief, no matter how erroneous, and pass it off as fact to support an argument motivated by any number of dubious motives, from malice to simple jealousy. This is a true hallmark or racial propaganda, for instance.\n\nAt the core of the matter may be a simple concept: both the humanist and Christian (I won't comment of other schools of thought or religions, though they exist) ideas that the individual human has intrinsic value. Basing an argument on the idea that one person or group of people has some negative quality, like low intellignce, does a great disservice to the discourse. Arguments that contain such personal motivations invariably end up being beside the point anyway.
597558
Thesis Statement:\n\nI used Yahoo! Answers for a report. Thousands of mischeivous people like the person that gave me this thesis could tell me all sorts of crap. Suicide is great for the environment.\n\n<BACK THIS UP WITH REASONS>
505446
Don't get excited by a new word.\n\nWhat caused the crime?\n Environment?\n Mental impairment?\n Motivations of revenge?\n Passion? (blinded by love or infatuations)\n Learned behavior?\n\nThe list goes on and on. The arguments can be appreciated by both sides in the interest of justice and corrections.
59220
What the guy above me said...or if they are primary source documents. Those are the best sources for material on a research essay. Who better to quote than the actual person who said it?
124589
A rhetorical question, perhaps?
982469
The best way to approach this is to list the prose and cones of both sides of the argument objectively.  Think of your self as a lawyer giving the closing statement to the jury.  The true trick to any essay is creativity (YOUR OWN CREATIVITY).  Close your eyes and imagine your self talking to your friends on the topic and you would be surprised at what comes out.  If that doesn't work than your SOL.
421988
A formal essay is structured, is has a intro, thesis, organized subpoints, and a conclusion. I informal essay is more relaxed and does not require so much proper formating. Informal is focuses more on the info itself rather than the formating.
1018715
I hate to tell you this, but it may depend (in part on the instructor).  Some people say that deductive reasoning goes from "general to specific" (applying a general principle to a specific example), while inductive reasoning goes from "specific to general" (trying to derive a general principle from specific examples).  THIS IS NOT ACCURATE, but this is how many non-logicians present the difference.\n\nA deductive argument seeks to prove the truth of the conclusion.  That is, if the premises (reasons) are true, then the conclusion must also be true.  An example is the sort of argument you see on standardized tests all the time:\nAll dogs are mammals.\nFido is a dog.\nTherefore, Fido is a mammal.\nThis is a deductive argument--if the first two sentences are true, then the last sentence must be true.  Deductive arguments can be evaluated for consistency, validity, and soundness--we won't worry about what all that means here (email me if you really want to know)--but a good deductive argument gives a proof of the conclusion that it offers.\n\nInductive reasoning, on the other hand, seeks to provide support for a conclusion.  Quite often you will find statistics being used in an inductive argument--perhaps because there are no hard and fast reasons that can be used to create a deductive argument.\n\nWhich is better?  Deductive arguments are preferred, because they offer a proof.  Inductive arguments cannot offer proof--they only offer support to a claim.  (And inductive arguments are used in advertising all the time--like the toothpaste commercial that reports that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend their brand--trying to give us a reason to support a claim that they cannot prove.)
317148
Debating ideas \n \n\nThe Five-minute Debate Planner (Mk I)\n\nTopic \n\nIssue and justification \n\n\n\nDefinitions and justifications \n\n\n\n\nCase line \n\n\n\n\nMaterial (arguments) \n\n\n\n\n\n\nRebuttal arguments \n\n\nAllocation \n\n\nAnticipated opposition arguments: \n\n\n\n \n\n\nThe "Five-minute Debate Planner" appears above — it is not unique. Use this sheet on some practice topics, and changed the plan to suit yourself.\n\nUse your version of the planning sheet\n\n\nto plan how you will present each debate, and \nto "capture" the other side's plan during the debate so you can analyse it. \nThe terms used in the sheet:\n\nThe topic is obvious. Just write it down as it is stated, and note what side you are on by writing "Aff" or "Neg" at the end of the line.\n\nThe issue is what the topic is really about. This question is very important if the topic is about a metaphor, like "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones". In this example, the issue is not about throwing real stones, or living in a glass house. You must always take time out to identify the issue.\n\nIn the same section, write down your justification for interpreting the issue this way. This shows briefly why you have chosen what you have chosen as the issue.\n\nNext, you come to your definitions. Mostly, these will come from your interpretation of the issue, and must refer to the issue. Sometimes, the definitions will come from what the "person in the street" would believe, or from the context of the topic. (If the topic is "That we should kill all the lawyers", this does not necessarily mean standing all the solicitors against a wall and shooting them, even if this strikes you as a tempting proposition. It helps to know that this was meant literally when Shakespeare wrote the lines for "Dick the Butcher".) Note down the context, if you know it.\n\nNext comes your case line. You need a quick statement of how the debate will go from your side.\n\nThen comes a brief points-form listing of your material, the arguments that your team will put forward.\n\nAs a separate section, note down rebuttal arguments. These are things that you need to remember and plan for, but which you plan to bring out in rebutting the other side's arguments.\n\nNext comes your allocation for the first two speakers. This divides up the caseline into a neat and logical division that gives each speaker a reasonable amount of material to work with.\n\nFinally, note down what you expect the other side to argue. Watch out: there may be more than one way of arguing either side of a case!!\n\nSample topics\n\nThese topics are roughly graded in terms of difficulty. In training, you will sometimes be required to take on a task which is easier or harder than your ability and age. Note that even the hardest topic can be debated at a simple level, and a very simple topic can be debated brilliantly!\n\nEasy\n\nThat homework should be banned.\n\nThat school uniforms are good for us.\n\nThat television is too violent.\n\nThat television does more harm than good.\n\nThat terrorism can be justified.\n\nThat the earth can look after itself.\n\nThat the IOC made the wrong decision for Sydney.\n\nThat a woman's place is in the home.\n\nThat Australia is a nation of bigots.\n\nThat the car is a luxury we can do without.\n\nThat all our woes have come from science.\n\nThat people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.\n\n \n\nJunior\n\nThat the Olympics are a five-ring circus.\n\nThat spectator sports are a waste of time.\n\nThat organised team sport is legalised violence.\n\nThat we are Uncle Sam's nephews and nieces.\n\nThat the law is an ass.\n\nThat education is the key to success.\n\nThat education starts after school.\n\nThat there is strength in diversity.\n\nThat peace depends on fear.\n\nThat we should try, try, try again.\n\nThat we should be vegetarians.\n\nThat we should
817925
Format\n\nI. Introduction\n  1.Topic Line\n  2. State 2+ things that are different and similar quickly\nII.Similarities\n  1. Topic Sentence\n  2. Example\n  3. Example\n  4. Hooking Sentence\nIII. Differences\n  1. Topic Sentence\n  2. Example\n  3. Example\n  4. Hooking Sentecne\nIV. Conclusion\n  1. Topic Sentence\n  2. Restate Everything\n  3. Concluding Sentence
985100
I think it's a good idea for students to see both (I'll call them "theories")  Use a comparison: Are students exposed to the writing style of Shakespeare only? Or, are they exposed to many writers?  If Ford was the only car offered for sale, how would a person know the points of other cars? The saying goes that "competition is healthy." Why not show more than one theory and let the student decide?
345200
A persuasive paper, the conclusion should really just say the same thing as the introduction with a slightly more detailed or expanded argument.  Short and plain are usually strongest.  I say this but I really can't write them myself!
711387
a persuasive essay takes the view of only 1 side of an argument. for example...you may be arguing FOR the war in iraq - but you CANNOT argue both for AND against, one or the other. if you argue for and against it becomes discursive (aka argumentative)