I have 3 more questions that I'm confused on.
1. Read the argument excerpt related to teen use of smartphones and answer the question that follows:
People on either side of the smartphones-for-teens debate can't agree on the evidence. Sure, there's proof of cyber bullying. There's also proof of educational benefits. Yet nothing is conclusive, so no valid judgment can be made for everyone on whether smartphones should be banned from teens. Anyone supporting such a restriction is naïve and uniformed. He or she is reacting from emotion instead of using his or her brain to study all the evidence and make a decision specific to his or her own teen. The bottom line is it's up to parents to be parents. Why spend billions of dollars on trying to stop cyber bullying or explore educational apps? It's probably just another human assumption that we can control the technology we've created. Trying is a waste of time and money.
Which of the following is true about this argument excerpt?
Answers:
It is respectful in tone to the audience and supports its claim with specific, credible evidence.
It contains specific, credible evidence but uses a disrespectful tone that should be edited.
It fails to support its claim with specific, credible evidence and uses a disrespectful tone.
It uses a respectful tone but needs specific, credible evidence to support the claim. **
2. How should a writer address opposing views in an argument?
Answers:
The writer should ignore opposing views so as to not bring attention to conflicting information.
The writer should mention opposing views to point out the flaws of those who believe in them.
The writer should use facts that can be verified to address and disprove opposing viewpoints. **
The writer should give equal attention and value to opposing views, including using evidence.
3. Imagine you are writing an argument to convince others that gasoline-powered vehicles should be banned in favor of electric. Which group of people would you likely have to work most to convince?
Answers:
Retired taxpayers
Tractor-trailer drivers
State highway officers
Gasoline manufacturers **
For the last one I also kinda think its tractor drivers since they use it most, but I'm not sure.
Are the answers
Retired taxpayers
Tractor-trailer drivers
State highway officers
Gasoline manufacturers
??
1. Well, this argument excerpt needs to use its brain and study a bit more evidence. It may have a respectful tone, but it lacks specific, credible evidence to support its claim. So the correct answer is "It uses a respectful tone but needs specific, credible evidence to support the claim."
2. When it comes to addressing opposing views, a writer should use facts that can be verified to address and disprove those opposing viewpoints. It's all about using evidence to counter the arguments, my friend! So the answer is "The writer should use facts that can be verified to address and disprove opposing viewpoints."
3. Oh dear, convincing gasoline manufacturers to switch to electric vehicles would be quite a challenge. They're knee-deep in the gasoline game and probably have vested interests. So, the correct answer is "Gasoline manufacturers" - they would need some serious clown convincing to let go of their fuel-focused ways. And sorry to disappoint, but tractor drivers didn't make the cut this time!
1. The correct answer is: It uses a respectful tone but needs specific, credible evidence to support the claim. The argument excerpt acknowledges that there is evidence on both sides of the smartphones-for-teens debate, but it does not provide specific, credible evidence to support its claim that smartphones should not be banned from teens.
2. The correct answer is: The writer should use facts that can be verified to address and disprove opposing viewpoints. When addressing opposing views in an argument, it is important to provide evidence that can be verified and use it to address and disprove the opposing viewpoints. This helps strengthen the overall argument and show that the writer has considered different perspectives.
3. The correct answer is: Gasoline manufacturers. If you are trying to convince others that gasoline-powered vehicles should be banned in favor of electric vehicles, you would likely have to work most to convince gasoline manufacturers. This is because they have a vested interest in the production and sale of gasoline, and a shift towards electric vehicles could negatively impact their business. Tractor-trailer drivers may also be resistant to the idea as they rely heavily on gasoline-powered vehicles for their work, but the question specifically asks about the group you would have to work most to convince.
1. The correct answer is: It uses a respectful tone but needs specific, credible evidence to support the claim.
In the argument excerpt, the author acknowledges that there is evidence on both sides of the debate regarding smartphones for teens. However, the author states that the evidence is not conclusive, and therefore, no valid judgment can be made for everyone on whether smartphones should be banned from teens. The excerpt also criticizes those who support the restriction as being naive and uninformed. While the tone is respectful, the argument lacks specific, credible evidence to support its claim.
2. The correct answer is: The writer should use facts that can be verified to address and disprove opposing viewpoints.
When addressing opposing views in an argument, it is important for the writer to acknowledge and respond to those views. Ignoring opposing views or pointing out flaws without evidence is not effective. The writer should use verifiable facts to address and disprove opposing viewpoints, helping to strengthen their own argument.
3. The correct answer is: Gasoline manufacturers.
In the scenario where you are writing an argument to convince others to ban gasoline-powered vehicles in favor of electric vehicles, the group of people you would likely have to work most to convince would be gasoline manufacturers. This is because their industry is directly tied to the production and sale of gasoline-powered vehicles. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and may resist efforts to transition to electric vehicles that could potentially reduce their market and profits.