Scenario You work for OneEarth, an environmental consulting company that specializes in building-condition assessments, contaminated-site remediation, and energy audits. Founded by an environmentally

Scenario

You work for OneEarth, an environmental consulting company that specializes in building-condition assessments, contaminated-site remediation, and energy audits. Founded by an environmentally concerned citizen in 2010, OneEarth has emerged as the highest-quality and most comprehensive environmental services company in the northern region of the United States.

Recently, ardent local representative Sy Bill Wright contacted OneEarth for assistance evaluating the validity of arguments related to fracking. He agreed to meet with any interest or advocacy groups that wanted to discuss their positions to ensure that he was well-informed about the controversial topic. Now, he needs OneEarth’s help examining the arguments and the evidence they provided to ensure that he makes a sound decision. He believes that OneEarth, a highly-respected environmental firm with strong connections to the local community, could provide critical insights to his evaluation of the advocacy groups’ evidence. Aware of your previous work advising on fossil fuel management, your manager Claire DeAir has asked you to serve as a liaison to representative Wright.

Directions

Representative Wright has provided you with all of the information he received from the advocacy or interest groups that he entertained the previous week. This information in available in his email in the Supporting Materials section. In your position paper (750–1,250 words), you will evaluate the arguments of each group, specifically examining their conclusions, premises, assumptions, and evidence. Using your analysis, representative Wright will be able to determine how to take the soundest position on the controversial topic. In your paper, include the following components:

• A discussion of the common conceptions and misconceptions about the topic
  • What is the topic? What are the common conceptions and misconceptions about this topic?
    • What is the context of the topic?
    • Why is the topic a significant issue?
  • What was your own opinion as a consultant prior to conducting research?
• An identification and description the components of the argument
  • What is the main point or conclusion about the topic?
  • What are the main arguments and subarguments about the topic?
    • What are the premises (reasons for thinking the conclusion is true)? Are there any missing premises?
    • What are the assumptions and biases?
• A recognition and evaluation of the deductive and inductive arguments
  • If the argument is deductive (providing premises that guarantee their conclusions):
    • Is the argument valid? (Are the premises and the conclusions true?)
      • What types of formal and/or informal logical fallacies are used?
    • Is the argument sound?
  • If the argument is inductive (aiming to provide premises that make the conclusion more probable):
    • Is the argument strong (more probable conclusion in light of premises) or weak (less probable conclusion in light of the premises)?
      • What type of argument is used (analogical or causal?)
    • Is the argument defeasible? (Can more information defeat the verdict that the conclusion is well-supported by the premises?)
      • What types of statistical fallacies are used?

Refer to the Supporting Materials section to explore how to write effectively.

What to Submit

Every project has a deliverable or deliverables, which are the files that must be submitted before your project can be assessed. For this project, you must submit the following:

Position Paper (750–1,250 words)Your manager, Claire DeAir, has asked you to serve as a liaison to representative Wright. You will develop a position paper that evaluates advocacy groups' arguments about the topic. Using your analysis, representative Wright will be able to determine how to take the soundest position on the controversial topic.

Part of my project is done just need some help on the following. Attached is the paper I'll leave some feedback from the profesor.

Distinguishes between inductive and deductive arguments

Although many of the project resources contain a lot of information, whether for fracking or against it, only two of the resources present formal(ish) attempts at making arguments:  “Hydraulic Fracturing: Critical for Energy Production [etc.]" by Nicolas Loris and the article by Gina M. Angiola--contain clear attempts at making arguments.  Of those two articles, one’s argument is primarily inductive and the other’s is primarily deductive.  Please identify which argument is which type.  This is a rather tricky decision to make because each of the articles uses some of each type of reasoning.  But one of them uses mostly deductive while the other uses mostly inductive reasoning.  

      You'll find much more information about deductive and inductive arguments in the feedback for the next two rubric areas.  As you master those areas, you'll also be mastering this one.

      Also, please know that Angiola uses several sources—including a summary of several hundred peer-reviewed articles—to support her position, but the hyperlinks have recently disappeared.  We who grade projects for this course are currently trying to determine what to do about this situation.

      One more thing:  please read Loris's article very carefully to see the logical fallacies he employs.  I use the word "employs" because Loris uses so many fallacies, so skillfully, that we can infer he is using them intentionally to cover the shortcomings in his argument.  But as you re-read Loris's article, ask yourself every time he makes a claim, "Okay, does this claim truly address the issue?  Or is this claim kind of about the issue but really doesn't settle it?"

      For example, Loris claims that it isn't the fracking process that can cause earthquakes, but rather the storage wells used in fracking that can cause earthquakes.  Therefore, he asserts, the claim that fracking causes earthquakes is a myth.  Well, Loris there is using a logical fallacy called Logic Chopping or Splitting Hairs.  The storage wells for fracking wouldn't exist--and therefore couldn't cause earthquakes--if not for the existence of the fracking process.  So saying that "fracking doesn't cause earthquakes, fracking storage wells cause earthquakes" is rather like saying, "I'm not allergic to my cat, I'm allergic to my cat's fur." 

      I urge you to look closely for logical fallacies including Red Herring, Begging the Question, Poisoning the Well, and Reductio ad Absurdem (a rhetorical technique that doesn’t have to be used fallaciously, but is in this case).  Once you've spotted the first one or two instances of Loris's fallacies, you'll probably find it easier to spot and identify the others.

     Here are two lists of resources.  The first list discusses the components of argument and of the two types of logic (deduction and induction).  The second list discusses common logical fallacies, which can occur in both types of argument.

Components of argument and logic:

• Critical Inquiry: The Process of Argument, chapter 2  http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=421115&site=eds-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_Cover
• Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, sections 4.2 and 4.3  https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/introduction-to-logic-and-critical-thinking
• CT Logical Reasoning, Chapter 2:  Deductive Reasoning  https://lms.nimblywise.com/courses/course-v1:Southern-New-Hampshire-University+Comp-Master+2019/block-v1:Southern-New-Hampshire-University+Comp-Master+2019+type@sequential+block@b2ca38a4ed634ec6847f093edce5c6b4/new_tab
• CT Logical Reasoning, Chapter 3:  Inductive Reasoning  https://lms.nimblywise.com/courses/course-v1:Southern-New-Hampshire-University+Comp-Master+2019/block-v1:Southern-New-Hampshire-University+Comp-Master+2019+type@sequential+block@46fd47f3b11449d2adbe90d03562e072/new_tab
• Video, Fundamentals: Deductive Arguments https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-critical-thinking/wiphi-fundamentals/v/intro-to-critical-thinking-deductive-arguments
• Video, Fundamentals: Validity https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-critical-thinking/wiphi-fundamentals/v/intro-to-critical-thinking-deductive-arguments

Logical fallacies

• “Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies.”  Near the top of the page, hover your pointer over each of the twenty-four symbols, for an explanation and example of each fallacy:  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
• “15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know…”  https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
• “Statistical Fallacies and How to Avoid Them.”  https://www.geckoboard.com/best-practice/statistical-fallacies/
• Video, Formal and Informal Fallacies  https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-critical-thinking/wiphi-fallacies/v/formal-informal-fallacy

Evaluates the validity and soundness of the deductive argument based on an examination of the premises, conclusions, and fallacies

Since your paper has not yet covered Loris’ argument, I will hold off on this rubric in case, after covering it, you change your mind about Angiola’s argument and decide that Loris’ argument is the deductive one. 

For the deductive argument (Loris or Angiola), you should analyze it for the following:

• Is it valid (if the premises are true, the conclusion will be true)? Why or why not?
• Is it sound (valid plus all of the premises are true)? Why or why not?
• Does it use any logical fallacies? It would be helpful to identify at least one by name and explain it.

The following Learning Resources focus on analyzing deductive arguments (the ones marked with an asterisk focus on fallacies):

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

• Interactive: Khan Academy: Fundamentals: Truth and Validity
• Reading: Introduction to Logical and Critical Thinking, Section 1.7
• Interactive: Khan Academy: Fundamentals: Soundness
• Reading: Critical Inquiry: The Process of Argument, Chapter 2 (p. 37-59) *
• Reading: Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, Sections 4.1.1-4.1.3
• Video: Fallacies: Equivocation *
• Reading: Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, Section 4.2
• Reading: Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, Sections 4.3-4.3.2
• Video: Khan Academy: Fallacies: Affirming the Consequent; Fallacies: Denying the Antecedent; Fallacies: Appeal to the People; Fallacies: Red Herring *

In addition, these resources on fallacies can also be helpful:

https://www.geckoboard.com/best-practice/statistical-fallacies/

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

Assesses the strength or weakness of an inductive argument based on an examination of the type (analogical or causal), premises, fallacies, and conclusions

For the inductive argument (Loris or Angiola), you should analyze it for the following:

• If it is strong or weak (depending on how likely the conclusion is to be true if the premises are true)
• If it is causal or analogical (depending on whether it works by claiming one thing causes another or by drawing an analogy or comparison between two things)
• If it is defeasible (depending on whether new information can be added to it that would make the conclusion false or “defeat” it)
• If it uses any logical or statistical fallacies (it would be helpful to identify at least one by name)

The following Learning Resources are related to analyzing inductive arguments:

Analyzing Inductive Arguments

• Reading: Fundamentals of Logic, Chapter 5, Section I (beginning on p. 152)
• Reading: Introduction to Logical and Critical Thinking, Sections 3.1-3.3
• Reading: Fundamental Methods of Logic, Chapter 6, Section V (beginning on p. 218)
• Reading: Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, Sections 3.8 and 3.10
• Resource: Extending Evaluation, Chapter 3: Statistics: both videos