Standardisation Task Hi there, could you please write a standardisation task, 1000 to 1300 words. Please read the article of Bret Waldon as attached and standardise it. I want the task to be exactl

STANDARDISATION TASK SAMPLE (WITH ANNOTATIONS) Please note the annotations added to this document are to explain the sample – Yo u d o n ’ t n e e d t o a d d a n n o t a t i o n s t o y o u r o w n w o r k . Sec ti on 1: Standardisa ti on of the argument ‘Adver ti sing is not bad for children’s health’ C: The Government should not ban the adver ti 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 food companies do not have a negative eTect on children's health P2.1. Ryan is ﬁt and healthy P2.2. Ryan lists fast food amongst his favourites P2.3. Without sponsorship oKered by fast food companies, many junior spor ti ng compe titi ons could not aKord to run at all P2.4. Researchers claiming to show a connec ti on between fast food consump ti on in childhood and health problems later on are probably just biased P3. Even if health concerns about fast food were justiﬁed, placing a ban on advertising to children would not be appropriate. P3.1. A dver ti sements for food aimed at children do not really make them eat any more of these foods than they otherwise would. P3.1.1. Adver ti sing is designed to increase market share, not overall consump ti on 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 adver ti sing to children P3.5. The ban would be a disservice to the companies who would suKer directly from the proposed bans P3.6. Children, like all consumers, need to have access to this informa ti on, to allow them to make informed decisions about their food choices P1., P2., P3. = Convergent P1.1., P1.2. = Convergent Commented [AG1]: 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 [AG2]: 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 [AG3]: Commented [JDY3]: These premises are both quite long, but they’re only making one claim each, so that’s ﬁne. Commented [AG4]: 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 [AG5]: 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 P2.1., P2.2.= Linked P2.3., P2.4. = Convergent P3.3., P3.4. = Linked P3.1., P3.2., P3.5., P3.6. = Convergent Sec ti on 2: Standardisa ti on of a counterargument: C: Fast food adver ti sing aimed at children should be banned P1.: Banning adver ti sing of fast food to children would decrease their consump ti on of fast food P1.1.: If children were not aware of fast food op ti ons, they wouldn't pester their parents for fast food P1.2.: Adver ti sers wouldn't be trying to adver ti se to children if it didn't make them buy more fast food P2.: Decreasing children's consump ti 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 ti sing would not prevent children playing sport P3.1.: Children played sport for years before fast food adver ti sing 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 Sources: https://www.ama.com.au/media/ama - calls - digital - black - out - junk - food - ads https://theconversation.com/junk - food - is - promoted - online - to - appeal - to - kids - and - target - young - men - our - study - shows - 234285 Commented [AG6]: 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. Commented [AG7]: Yo u n e e d t o u s e a t l e a s t t w o s o u r c e s to develop your argument for this assignment. You can use more if you wish. You can use the sources we provided links to in the instructions or you can ﬁnd your own sources. Yo u s h o u l d b e d ra w i n g o n t h e s o u r c e s y o u u s e d t o develop your argument, but your argument should all be in your own words Sec ti on 3: Reﬂec ti on My conclusion is relatively radical, because although there are bans in place for the advertising of other products like alcohol and gambling to children, the audience might not initially support similar bans in relation to fast food, since those other products are illegal for children and fast food is not. I think my linked main premises 1 and 2 are quite conservative because the audience is likely to believe that it would be better for children not to eat so much fast food and that advertising makes them consume more. This conservative support strengthens my argument, since people are likely to accept those claims, which should then lead them to accept my conclusion. The other main premise I’ve included (premise 3) is a response to premise 2.3 of the original argument. I’ve focussed on that claim because I think it is a relatively conservative claim that the audience is likely to accept, which makes it strong evidence for Premise 2 of that argument. I have tried to strengthen my own argument by responding directly to one of the stronger claims given by the arguer. I demonstrated epistemic responsibility in several ways. In producing sections 1 and 2 of my assignment I used the standardisation argument tool (URLS: https://tools.arts.mq.edu.au/critical - thinking/standardise?a=ppdc14mrfz8tq9s1udy3ofnp and https://tools.arts.mq.edu.au/critical - thinking/standardise?a=x7xwglzvitgzedc0ib990v2j ) . W hilst the app helped me construct the standardisations , the choice of premises and representation of inferences depended on my own judgement. I checked all inferences using the therefore test, ensuring that my standardisations demonstrated my own understanding. In section 2, the premises were drawn from sources I read and cited, but articulated in my own words. Word count: 263 Commented [AG8]: 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. Commented [AG9]: Using the standardisation argument tool is option but recommended. If you do use the standardisation argument tool in either part 1 and/or part 2 of the assignment, please provide the URLs. If you do not use the standardisation argument tool, then you do not need to list URLs. Commented [AG10]: If you used GenAI, you will need to say something here about how you ensured your work was your own in a meaningful sense, demonstrating your own understanding of and engagement with unit content. Eg Did you check all the inferences using the ‘therefore test’ to ensure you understood the standardisation process, and that your standardisation is consistent with the method taught in the unit? Did you actually read the sources you’ve cited, to ensure not only that they exist but that they say what GenAI claims they say? Are the premises of your argument in section 2 in your own words? Have you applied suNicient judgement in the creation of that argument to ensure it is your own argument? Is your Reﬂection based on how *you* chose to respond to Waldon?