Can you help me discussing the arguments for/against statement?
817194
I'll give you an example of where practices were changed which essentially adopted corporate social responsibility where it hadn't previously existed:\n\nIn Cusco (Peru) tour operators used to compete to offer the cheapest tours of the Inca Trail - especially in the immediate aftermath following the ban on independent trekkers doing the Trail.  All tour operators had porters - whether they carried just the dining tent, cooking gear and food and did the cooking at camp, or whether they carried trekkers gear as well.  \n\nMost of these porters were employed on an ad hoc basis and came from the poor villages just before the Trail starts.  They are renowned for literally running up and down the mountain passes wearing flip flops made out of used tyres.  The problems came with the fact that they were employed ad hoc and the pay varied greatly.  Trekkers ended up arguing with tour operators when they learnt that their porters were earning less than porters with other companies and carrying twice the recommended weights - borne out by frequent sightings of porters tumbling down mountains as the weight they were carrying toppled them.\n\nGuidelines were eventually introduced recommending maximum weights for porters to carry and essentially a minimum wage and tour operators who did not comply with this were not licensed to continue with tours of the Inca Trail so they all pulled their finger out and started treating the porters better. \n\nAdded to this were increased regulations about things like eco-tourism - i.e. taking waste away, and digging toilets to recommended depths.\n\nThis is a practical example of how corporate social responsibility in a developing country at its largest tourist centre improved not only the experience of the Inca Trail, but the conditions for those porters employed to work the Trail.  The against argument in this circumstance I guess is that people had willingly booked those cheaper tours and not all will have been distressed by the treatment of the porters or the lack of eco-responsibility. \n\nHope that's of some help.  Good luck.
522578
You can say:\n\n"I disagree" OR "I'm disagreeing"\n\nBasically, English grammar works such that if you use the verb "to be" as a helping verb to indicate a continuous action you *must* use the -ing suffix on your main verb.\n\nOther examples to help you get the idea.\n\nI swim.  I am swimming.\nI run.  I am running.\nI read.  I am reading.\n\nNormally, the verb "to disagree" requires an object.  E.g. "I disagree with [blank]" OR "I am disagreeing with [blank]."  However, if the object is clear from the context it can be omitted.\n\nExample 1:\n\nJoe Schmo:  Cats are stupid.\nJane Schmo: I disagree.\n\nIn this example, it is clear from the context what Jane disagrees with.\n\nExample 2:\nJane Schmo: I am disagreeing with Joe concerning the notion that cats are stupid.\nJohn Suave: Interesting.  Tell me more.\n\nIn this example, Jane must use an object in order to explain the context to John.  And, in the structure of this sentence, the entire phrase following "with" is the object.\n\nThis is a somewhat simplified explanation, but I hope that helps.
358704
Ok - here we go.  Basically, you want to argue your main point (or thesis) by giving 3 (sometimes more or sometimes less, but 3 is "typical") main reasons why what you are saying is "right".  \n     Let's say I want to argue that walking is good for you.  Okay, the first paragraph is what most people would call an "introductory" paragraph.  In this paragraph, you would basically introduce what your main point is and then you would add in what your main three points are...but you would do this in a way that would stretch it out to where its not just one sentence (because this is a paragraph we are talking about here).  A good starter sentence I always use is "When most people hear the word [BLANK], many words come to mind, such as [BLANK BLANK and BLANK], but what many do not know is that [BLANK] is actually [BLANK]."  Get the point?  You have to stretch it out some.  Lure the reader in, if you will.  \n     So then after your intro paragraph, you would introduce your first point (which you already mentioned in the intro paragraph).  Then after you mention your first reason why you are "right", you back it up with some FACTS.  You wouldn't say "I believe walking is good for you because my friend Judy said it was.  So there."  You would have to go and look at some RESOURCES such as a dictionary, encyclopedia, TRUSTED news sites on the internet, TRUSTED books and other medias from your public/school library, and also, perhaps interviews with people who are "authorities" on the subject.  So, let's say your first reason you think walking is good for you is because it lowers your blood pressure.  You then would have to say that the BlahBlah Encyclopedia or Yahoo News reported that walking has been proven by doctors at Columbia University that walking lowers blood pressure.  You could also use your mom's interview if she said that that walking personally lowered her blood pressure.  And you would just prove prove prove using FACTS (that's how you win any arguement, if you ask me).   \n     So then, after you have done this with all three reasons why you are "right", you then do your 5th paragraph which is what most people call the "conclusion" paragraph.  You just "wrap up" everything you just said and maybe add a little personal opinion or a little little quote.  Something to "jazz" it up...this is to keep the reader interested until the very end.  This is also called a "clincher".  \n     Hope this helped some.
296184
Pro is the Latin for "for," or "in favour of;" contra (con) is simply the Latin preposition and adverb for "against."
435522
Please give us a little more detail. For example, what government are you talking about? What is your speech trying to prove? What are the criteria? As a general guideline, if you are writing this to persuade, then make sure you have some persuasive elements in you speech. Such as appeals (rational, emotive etc). For more info, go to http://aal15.tutor.com/nGEN/Apps/SocWeb/main.aspx?ID=9f3e62b7-fff2-4173-bbe3-c33e445cb66e, where real people will give you reliable answers.
260378
pro= from latin pro (i.e., for)\ncon= from latin contra (i.e., against)\n\npro et contra= pros and cons = for and against
637741
Your sentence structure is passive.  To make it active, make the subject of the sentence the administrators and people of the community instead of "the reason," which merely "is."  For example: "Administrators and people of the community hear the same laundry list of complaints from industry leaders in the community," or whatever it is your "reason" is.\n\nGood luck.
930584
it's very difficult for you to prove the contrary.\n\n:> peace\n.
441824
Modus Ponens:\nIf is true P, then Q is true.\nP is true.\nTherefore, Q is true. \nExample:\nIf you buy today, I will give you a 10% discount. You have agreed to buy today, so I will reduce the price by 10%.\n\nModus Tollens:\nIf P, then Q.\nQ is false.\nTherefore, P is false.\nExample:\nIf there is smoke, there is fire. There is not fire, so there is no smoke.
694928
I can't get into detail, but I'm in college and I just turned in my research paper, which is an argument essay. You need to do some research on your topic and acknowledge in a paragraph or page the opposing viewpoints and argue against them. I know it sucks, but get into much more depth. Don't just list the good points. Good luck and I hope that you get an A!
377308
I SHOULDN'T\nwell, actually...\nWhy shouldn't I?\n\nThe PROS: I get two points, I get a potential 10 points\nThe CONS: ....ummm...because I have a limited number of responses.\n\nCONCLUSION: I SHOULD, BECAUSE POINTS ARE FUN!
972858
Actually this is not a straw-man argument but it need not demonstrate inconstancy in the person. They could hold for instance (Incorrectly in my opinion) that the foetus is not yet a living organism and therefore is not yet possessed of those rights that they afford all life and which the lobsters therefore possess.\n\nA straw-man argument is one in which you present your opponents argument in a form where it is much weaker than it need be, perhaps by omitting some crucial point or by misconstruing the argument. Then like a straw-man would be it is easier to knock down.
881466
the diff between a persuasive paper and an argumentive paper is about what the motivation to talk about it is. if you're compairing it to someone else's oppinion, then it's arg. if you're just trying to get people to do or think about something, then it's pers.
773717
Other than those in the links below, this should give you a good start:\n\nFallacies of Relevance \n1. Argumentum ad Bacculum (appeal to force) \n\n"Pay back the loan and 10 % daily interest by Thursday, or be sure that you have you hospital insurance paid up."\n\n2. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive) \n\n"Don't believe anything John says; he's a nerd."\n\n3. Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial)\n\n"Of course he thinks fraternities are great. He's a Phi Delta."\n\n4. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)\n\nThere is no proof that witches exist; therefore, they do not.\n\n5. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity) \n\n"Your honor, how can the prosecution dare try to send this poor, defenseless child to jail for the murder of his father and mother. Have a heart; the boy is now an orphan."\n\n6. Argumentum ad Populum \n\n"Don't be left out! Buy your Chevette today!"\n\n7. Argumentum ad Vericundiam (appeal to authority) \n\nJoe Namath selling pantyhose; Joe DiMaggio selling Mr. Coffee.\n\n8. Accident \n\n"What you bought yesterday, you eat today; you bought raw meat yesterday; therefore, you eat raw meat today."\n\n9. Converse Accident (hasty generalization) \n\n"That man is an alcoholic. Liquor should be banned."\n\n10. False cause (Post hoc ergo propter hoc) (Many of our superstitions stem from use of this fallacy.) \n\n"A black cat crossed Joe's path yesterday, and he died last night. The black cat caused Joe's death." \n\n11. Petitio Principii (begging the question) \n\n"It's time to come in the house now, Billy."\n"Why?"\n"Because I said so!"\n"Why?"\n"Because it's time, and I said so."\n\n12. Complex Question \n\n"Have you given up cheating on exams?"\n\n13. Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) \n\nIn a law court, in attempt to prove that the accused is guilty of theft, the prosecution may argue that theft is a horrible crime for anyone to commit.\n\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nFallacies of Ambiguity \n1. Equivocation \n\nSome dogs have fuzzy ears. My dog has fuzzy ears. My dog is some dog!\n\n2. Amphibole (grammatical construction) \n\n"Woman without her man would be lost." or "Save Soap and Waste Paper."\n\n3. Accent \n\n"We should not speak ill of our friends."\n\n4. Composition\n\n"Each part of this stereo weighs under one pound. This is a very light stereo."\n\n5. Division\n\n"Purdue is a great engineering school. Mike went there; he must be a great engineer."
934573
Is this a question or an abstract statement...
730570
There are three errors in this sentence. What are they?\n\nThere are only two grammatical errors, so the false statement is the third error.
259386
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy