standardisation task. Please use the sample of section one and section two no word limit only section 3 for reflection needs 200 words. no references because you will be using the article for the

STANDARDISATION TASK SAMPLE ( WITH ANNOTATIONS ) Please note the annota;ons added to this document are to explain the sample – Yo u don ’ t need to add annota;ons to your own work. Sec;on 1 : Standardisa;on of the argument ‘Adver;sing is not bad for children ’s h e alth ’ C: The Government should not ban the adver;sing of fast food to children P1.: There is no clear proof that Australian children are becoming less healthy P1.1.: A recent survey conducted by the NSW government of over 5000 children aged 4 - 16 in schools across NSW, found that the percentage who were overweight or obese had only risen by about 5% since 2008, to around 25% . P1.2.: A recent survey conducted by the NSW government of over 5000 children aged 4 - 16 in schools across NSW, found that children were exercising signiﬁcantly more than they were in 200 8 P2.: Fast f ood companies do not have a nega;ve eﬀect on children's health P2.1.: Ryan is ﬁt and healthy, but lists fast food amongst his favourites P2.2.: Without sponsorship oﬀered by fast food companies, many junior sporMng compeMMons could not aﬀord to run at all P2.3.: Researchers claiming to show a connecMon between fast food consumpMon in childhood and health problems later on are probably just biased P3.: Even if health concerns about fast food were jus;ﬁed, placing a ban on adver;sing to children would not be appropriate. P3.1.: adverMsements for food aimed at children do not really make them eat any more of these foods than they otherwise would. P3.1.1.: AdverMsing is designed to increase market share, not overall consumpMon P3.2.: Children don't make the purchasing decisions P3.3.: Children in the US consume more fast food than Australian children P3.4.: The US has not banned fast food adverMsing to children P3.5.: The ban would be a disservice to the companies who would suﬀer directly from the proposed bans P3.6.: Children, like all consumers, need to have access to this informaMon, to allow them to make informed decisions about their food choices P1., P2., P3. = Convergent P1.1., P1.2. = Convergent P2.1., P2.2., P2.3. = Convergent P3.3., P3.4. = Linked P3.1., P3.2., P3.5., P3.6. = Convergent Commented [JDY1]: There will be a lot of variation in the standardisations of the argument you’re using for your assignment. There’s not one exact standardisation we’re looking for, but you should be aiming to give a clear representation of the argument. Commented [JDY2]: This standardisation was developed in the App, and then downloaded using the ‘Download argument’ button. You don’t have to use the App, but it’s recommended. Note that when we standardise outside the App we’ve been just using “1”, “2” etc as premise numbers rather than “P1”, “P2” etc as is generated by the App. Either is ﬁne. Commented [JDY3]: These premises are both quite long, but they’re only making one claim each, so that’s ﬁne. Commented [JDY4]: I’ve done some paraphrasing here, to make the context for premise 1.2 clear. I think these premises should be treated as convergent, since they’re independent claims, so I’ve paraphrased to make 1.2 clearer on its own. Commented [JDY5]: I’ve only included one sub - sub premise here. Often going back as far as one level of sub premises is suNicient, but I’ve added an extra premise here to be fair to the author, since 3.1 is quite radical but 3.1.1 provides evidence for it. It seems to be an important claim Commented [JDY6]: Note that most premises in this argument are convergent, but these are linked because they need to be taken together to support 3. Sec;on 2: Standar disa;on of a counterargument: C: Fast food adver;sing aimed at children should be banned P1.: Banning adver;sing of fast food to children would decrease their consump;on of fast food P1.1.: If children were not aware of fast food opMons, they wouldn't pester their parents for fast food P1.2.: AdverMsers wouldn't be trying to adverMse to children if it didn't make them buy more fast food P2.: Decreasing children's consump;on of fast food would be a good thing P2.1.: Fast food is associated with higher levels of obesity P2.2.: Fast food is associated with poorer dental health P3.: Banning fast food adver;sing would not prevent children playing sport P3.1.: Children played sport for years before fast food adverMsing P3.2.: Other companies can also donate money to children's sport if fast food sponsorship is banned. P1., P2. = Linked P1.1., P1.2. = Convergent P2.1., P2.2. = Convergent P3.1., P3.2. = Convergent Sec;on 3: Re ﬂec;on My conclusion is relatively radical, because a lthough there are bans in pla ce for the advertising of other products like alcohol and gamblin g to childr en, the audience might not init ially support similar bans in relation to fast food, since those other produ cts are illegal for children and fast food is not. I th ink the linked main prem ises 1 and 2 , which I ’ve give n to support t hat claim, are quite conservative, because the audience is likely to belie ve that it would be better for children not to eat so much fast food and that advertising makes them consume more . This conservative support streng thens my argument , since p e ople are likel y to accept those claim s, which should then lead the m to accept my conclusion. The other main premise I ’ve in cluded (premise 3) is a respon se to prem ise 2.2 of the original argument . I ’ve focus sed on that claim because I that claim in the original argument is a relatively cons ervative claim that the audience is likel y to accept, which makes it stron g e vidence for Premise 2 of th at argument. I have tried to streng then my own argument by responding directly to one of the stronger claims given by the arguer. W ord count: 1 95 Commented [JDY7]: This is an example of the kinds of issues you should consider here, but there are diNerent approaches you can take when writing a response, so you need to make sure what you say is relevant to the approach you’ve taken. For example I’ve explained here why I chose to respond directly to a conservative claim, to strengthen my argument, but you could also choose to respond to one or more of the more radical claims, since they will be easier to refute, and if they’re playing an important role in the argument, responding directly to them can be eNective. So don’t think of this example as a model for what you have to say. Ensure your reﬂection/comment is well focussed and relevant to your own counterargument, and that you demonstrate an understanding of the signiﬁcance of premises being radical or conservative