ENG
106 Entire Course-GC
Click Link Below To Buy:
Contact Us:
Hwcoursehelp@gmail.com
ENG 106 Entire Course-GC
ENG106
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 1 Discussion 1
Throughout this course, you will be researching, discussing, and
writing about the donation and sale of human organs. To assist you in the
research, the lectures and supplemental readings provide different perspectives
on this complex and controversial topic. Please use the “Resource List”
document to find and read articles about the sale of human organs.
After you have read about this topic, identify and discuss in 100-125
words one potential cause for this phenomenon.
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 1 Discussion 2
Your text and lectures discuss the importance of enthymemes in
writing arguments. Create enthymemes (claims and reasons) that are appropriate
for each of the essay genres (i.e., causal argument, ethical argument, and
proposal argument).
Here is an example of an enthymeme:
Proposal essay: Should school cafeterias be required to offer only
nutritionally balanced meals?
CLAIM: School cafeterias should exclusively serve nutritionally
balanced meals.
REASON: Because obesity rates among school age children are
increasing.
Causal argument essay: What is one cause of the sale of human
organs?
CLAIM:
REASON:
Ethical argument: Is the sale of human organs right or wrong?
CLAIM:
REASON:
Proposal argument: Should the sale and purchase of human organs be
made legal?
CLAIM:
REASON:
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 2 Discussion 1
After reading Christian Longo’s essay in Chapter 13, please
consider the following:
A potential definition argument centers on whether a prisoner can
voluntarily donate organs. Prisoners and human rights advocates might disagree
about what voluntary donation means: Is organ donation voluntary if prisoners
receive the same counseling as donors outside of the prison system, or is it
only voluntary if a person is not facing death (in this case, not on death
row)? If someone were to develop this argument, they would define voluntary and
then explain how a particular case such as Christian Longo’s matches their
definition of voluntary. What do you think about this issue? What does
voluntary mean to you, and under what circumstances would inmates in our prison
system be voluntarily offering to donate their organs? At what point do you
think they would be involuntarily signing up to donate organs?
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 2 Discussion 2
Read “Legalizing the Organ Trade?” by Ritter, located on the Time
website.
.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1833858,00.html”>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1833858,00.html
As noted in Peter Ritter’s (2008) “Legalizing the Organ Trade?”,
Singapore’s health minister, Khaw Boon Wan, argued that “We may be able to find
an acceptable way to allow a meaningful compensation for some living, unrelated
kidney donors, without breaching ethical principles or hurting the
sensitivities of others” (Ritter, 2008). You might ask yourself: What
constitutes “meaningful compensation” for an organ donor, especially if the
donor is poor and the recipient is wealthy? What examples of human organ sales
can you find that match or do not match your definition of “meaningful
compensation”?
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 3 Discussion 1
Dr. Francis Delmonico believes that even a regulated human organ
trade would be exploitative because “It’s the poor person who sells” (Meckler,
2007). Do you agree that allowing a poor person to sell an organ is an
exploitative practice? Why or why not? What examples from real-life organ
donors can you provide that help you demonstrate how a regulated human organ
trade would be (or not be) exploitative?
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 3 Discussion 2
Do you think the human organ trade should be legal or illegal,
depending on your perspective? How do human organs compare (or not compare)
with other types of commodities especially those that have some degree of legal
restrictions such as prescription medicine?
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 4 Discussion 1
As you have learned in the lectures in Topics 1 and 4, a causal
claim argues that one thing leads to another (e.g., “Increasing levels of acidity
in sea water are harming the oceans’ coral reefs.”). A causal chain links
causal claims together as links in a chain. There is an excellent example of
how to use direct explanation in the creation of a causal chain on page 262 in
your textbook.
Summarize the causal chain used by the writer in the article from
The New York Times. Was the argument persuasive? Why or why not?
What has caused the growth of selling human organs, a concept
unthinkable 100 years ago? What has caused the growth of selling human organs
on the black market?
What are the causes you will write about in your draft?
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 4 Discussion 2
As the lectures for this topic indicate, there are two ways to
argue effectively that one phenomenon causes or influences another: causal
chains and inductive reasoning. The most common and persuasive approach is the
former, in which each step in the cause-and-effect process is itemized and
explained. There is an excellent example of how to use direct explanation in
the creation of a causal chain on page 262 in your textbook.
Develop a causal chain showing how the invention of the automobile
led to changes in sexual mores (Ramage, Bean & Johnson, 2012, p.260).
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 5 Discussion 1
Please read the summary of religious views on organ donation in
“Religious Views on Donation.”
http://www.organdonor.gov/about/religiousviews.html
Select one religion about which you are knowledgeable and develop
a causal chain connecting the religion’s core beliefs with its stance on organ
donation. If you are not knowledgeable about any religion, please research a
religion of your choice to complete this activity.
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 5 Discussion 2
Use the STAR criteria described in your textbook in Chapter 5 and
the lecture to evaluate the sources you are planning to use. How well do your
sources meet these criteria? Explain your reasoning.
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 6 Discussion 1
To whom will you address your proposal? Remember: This person (or
group) will be skeptical of your views. Will it be a friend or family member
with different beliefs and values related to health care and/or the human body?
Are there individuals in the medical community who hold different values than
you do? How about a politician or one of the authors of our readings?
What are their views on the issue of selling human organs, and
what do they think should be done about it? Summarize the views of your
skeptical audience as fairly and accurately as possible.
During the week, review your classmates’ summaries of their
skeptical audiences’ views. How well do you think they did? Were the summaries
fair, or did they seem biased? How can you tell? Give them some pointers on
revising their summaries.
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 6 Discussion 2
Use the following questions to develop ideas for your proposal.
1. What do you think is the most significant problem regarding the
sale of organs?
2. Why do you think it is a problem?
3. Who has the power to solve this problem?
4. Why has it not been solved up to this point?
5. How can the problem be solved?
6. What are the benefits and costs related to your solution?
Using previous strategies for argumentation discussed in class,
develop some arguments for your proposal that you could use for your skeptical
audience. (Use arguments from consequence, arguments from principle, arguments
from category, and arguments of resemblance as you see fit.)
ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 7 Discussion 1
In the lecture, Rebekah Taylor’s argument in “A Letter to Jim”
follows a particular arrangement of ideas. Your proposal should do the same
thing. In other words, your proposal should follow this outline:
1. Open cordially and introduce the issue
2. Summarize the opposing view fairly and accurately while
recognizing their importance
3. Summarize your own view of the issue without arguing that the
opposing views are wrong
4. Find common ground on which to build a compromise
5. Argue in favor of a perspective that both you and your
skeptical audience can agree on
No comments:
Post a Comment