Basically, this page addresses only an English-taught program. Nevertheless, the large majority of those students are Romanians, so I think a Romanian version of the text may be useful. If international student, do not worry, you still have access to the entire content of this page.
Sarcina studentului este de a analiza logica eronată utilizată într-o apariție media. The student has to argue that one piece of media uses mistaken logic.
Notă: Este pentru prima dată când utilizăm acest proiect.
Nu știm decât cu o largă aproximație la ce să ne așteptăm din partea studenților, și din acest motiv pretențiile și rigoarea notării vor fi relativ scăzute.
Ne cerem scuze pentru inerentele erori, imprecizii și întârzieri ale aplicării acestui exercițiu.
Lucrarea trebuie să îi aparțină studentului în cauză.
O lucrare plagiată atrage în mod automat nota finală 1 (unu). The paper should be the student's own, original work.
Plagiarism will automatically result in the final grade of 1 (one).
Lucrarea se va baza pe un editorial, un articol sau o emisiune de știri, pe care studentul îl/o percepe ca recurgând la o logică eronată.
The student's task is to use the categories of fallacious reasoning learned in class and to discuss why the chosen piece of media uses "mistaken logic" to argue its point.
The student should be focusing on the piece's failures, not on whether or not he/she agrees with its premise(s).
Lucrările trebuie să aibă între 900 și 1250 de cuvinte (3-5 pagini).
Lucrările trebuie predate la timp, fie electronic, fie pe hârtie.
Studentul va anexa lucrării o copie sau un transcript al apariției alese (o copie propriu-zisă, nu un link). Papers should be between 900-1,250 words (3-5 pages).
Papers may be turned in electronically or in hard copy by the due date/time.
The student should should include a copy of the article or transcript with his/her paper (a full copy, not just a link).
Eventualele citări vor respecta unul dintre formatele: APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian. Citations should be done using correct APA, MLA, or Chicago/Turabian format.
oricare alte surse similare, omise mai sus.
any other similar source, if omitted above.
Sursa aleasă trebuie să fie cu acces public. The chosen source should be open to and viewed by the general public.
Cu cât tema apariției alese este mai controversată sau dezbătută în mass-media, cu atât e mai probabil ca studentul să îi găsească erori de logică și argumentație. Oricum, asemenea erori se găsesc și în afara temelor controversate, și este foarte bine dacă studenții le identifică. The more controversial or debated the subject matter of the piece, the more likely the student is to be able to find its problems in logic and argumentation. There are pieces that make these errors outside of controversial subjects, and if the student finds one, he/she should feel free to use it.
1. Identifică principalul argument sau 1. Identify the main argument or claim(s) of the piece. Do not state whether you agree or disagree with it.
2. Identify the subsidiary claims (the smaller claims that the author is putting together to make the larger, main claim). Again, do not state whether or agree or disagree. You should point out any factual errors in premise/warrant.
3. Within each subsidiary claim, identify the problems in the argument (not the ideas). Point out fallacious reasoning, bad premises/warrants, lack of evidence, misdirection, emotional appeal, etc.
4. Offer suggestions of what the author should have done to remedy or avoid each instance of "mistaken logic." If there are factual errors (that you can reasonably correct), fix them. Otherwise, suggest a way it could have been done better.
5. Finally, as your "main argument," state whether the piece was effective because of or even in spite of its "mistaken logic." Sometimes, pieces that appeal to our emotions are in fact more effective at persuading us than those using only factual information – you may find this is the case with the piece you have chosen. Make sure that you address each instance of "mistaken logic" in these terms: useful or harmful to the author's argument.
– When you organize your paper, decide whether you want to organize it around the claims or around the problems. Do not simply write a long list of problems without some sort of clear organization. You do not want to be guilty of the same sorts of errors as the piece you are analyzing.
– Use spell- and grammar-check. It will not catch everything, but it can be helpful.
Out loud, if possible. If you can convince a roommate or classmate to help, that will be even better. Lack of proofreading will leave many errors in your paper that you would otherwise fix.
Use specific quotations from the piece (and any other source you might have) and explain what they mean and why they are helpful to your argument.
Cite any source you use. Avoid using web sources that are not "academic" (Wikipedia, for instance), as they can be inaccurate and hurt you more than they help.
Your paper will be evaluated on the strength of your main claim, your use of appropriate and detailed evidence, the depth with which you analyze the article/source, your own logical reasoning, the detail of your suggested corrections, overall paper organization, and the appropriateness and correctness of your written language.
Când trebuie predată această temă?
Acest proiect trebuie predat doar personal sau mai putem sa-l trimitem si la o anumita adresa de mail?
Mi-l puteți trimite prin e-mail.