I want a final scenario, of two parts part one just 200 words for by Anne Tetek. and part two of 1250 words plus 250 words for recommendation by by Douglas Engelbart the total words are 1700 word

I want a  final scenario, of two parts 

part one just 200 words for  by Anne Tetek. and part two of 1250 words plus 250 words for recommendation by  by Douglas Engelbart

the total words are 1700 words. 

only 7 reference. 

please read below of what you need to do. I have attached three forms of the articles by both authors and a template to familiarise yourself of how you should write it. 

You have been hired to analyse two written arguments published in The Blackberry Heights School Newsletter.

The first argument is written by Anne Tetek, arguing in favour of a ban on phones in schools. (This argument was presented to you first, and you have already started work on it by standardising the argument). The second is written by Douglas Engelbart, arguing against the ban.

3

Having already made a start by standardising Tetek’s argument, you will now need to standardise the argument by Engelbart. You must then evaluate both arguments before, finally, presenting a recommendation to Principal Skinner. 

1. Two Standardisations

In this assignment the only standardisation that will be marked your standardisation of the argument by Engelbart.

You MUST however submit a copy of a standardisation of Tetek’s argument again as well, to provide a point of reference for your analysis of her argument. You can either submit your own standardisation (provided that it is accurate – see note above) OR the one we have provided for you to use.

(See Template for further advice).

There is no word limit on the standardisations.

2. Analysis

You must then produce a 1250-word analysis of the weaknesses AND strengths of the two arguments.

You should include:

• Any problems in the arguments used (e.g. violations of rules, notable fallacies, unsupported or poorly supported claims, judgements on whether any research they’ve referred to is handled correctly and honestly, etc.)

• Comments on the some of the types of argument used (e.g. inductive, deductive, abductive, analogy, causal claims), AND you should analyse them in the appropriate manner (e.g. weak/strong, valid/sound, etc.).

• An analysis of the language, rhetoric, and possible biases used, tone and language (e.g. word choice, ambiguity, spin, jargon, certainty and doubt, etc.)

• A statement of the word count. If this is not included, then you will be penalised (see the rubric). As stated above, 1250 words here is a hard limit. This includes all the

 5

words in this section including subheadings if you choose to use them. Do not write more than this. This requires you to be concise and to the point. The Principal does not want to have to read War and Peace, she just wants the core points.

3. Recommendation

Finally, you must include a 250-word maximum “recommendation summary briefing” for Principal Skinner.

How should she judge the cases presented in the submissions? Which is the better argument and why? Based on the points that have been raised, how can she push the debate forward in a useful way, to keep the community happy? What points should she focus on in making her decision?

You must include a statement of the word count for this section, or you will be penalised (see the rubric). As stated above, 250 words here is a hard limit. Do not write more than this. Again, the Principal’s time is limited so focus on the main and core points and getting them across in a clear manner.