Read the following dialogues. In each one, the first character gives an argument and the second character responds to it.

Find those cases in which the second characters response meets the challenge of argument
and indicate that it does and explain how. Find those cases in which the second characters response does not meet this challenge and
why it does not. Then reconstruct the argument so that it does meet the challenge. In each
case, explain the basis for your answer.Your essay should consist of an introduction explaining what you will do, a body in which you
deal with each dialogue in turn according to the information above, and a closing paragraph.The Dialogues
1. Jim: A mediator should be completely neutral between the two parties in a dispute. If he or
she is on the side of either party, the process will be unfair to the other party. In addition, the
disadvantaged party will probably detect the lack of neutrality and then the mediation wont
work. Neutrality is probably the most essential of all qualities for a mediator to have. And
because the United States is the worlds only superpower, it will never be perceived as neutral.
The idea that the United States can go in and mediate in the conflict between Israelis and
Palestinians is completely stupid!
Roger: I dont think so. Its the one country capable of bringing pressure on both sides, and
thats the most fundamental thing.
2. Steve: I would never let myself be hypnotized by anyone, for any reason.
Peter: Why not?
Steve: Too much is at stake. I just dont trust anyone that much. When you let somebody
hypnotize you, they are getting right inside your mind, and they have a lot of potential to control
you. Hypnosis is dangerous because it opens your mind to too much outside influence.
Peter: I can see what you mean but I dont know; hypnosis helped me a lot when I was quitting
smoking. I used it once for dental work too, and it was great.
3. Nicholas: Legislation compelling children to wear helmets when they are riding their bikes is
really a good thing. The latest statistics from the Canadian Institute for Health Information show
that hospitalizations due to cycling-related injuries decreased by 12.5 percent between 1997
and 98 and 2001 and 02, and during the same period, head injuries decreased by 26 percent.
Helmet laws really work.
Kaitlyn: Thats great news. But I wonder whether these declines are actually the result of the
legislation. I mean, it could be that people are cycling less, or that public education campaigns
about helmets are helping more than the actual legislation.

Price: £ 79

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions

Leave your Comments

Can't read the image? click here to refresh