ENG 106 Grand Canyon All Week Discussions

ENG 106 Grand Canyon All Week Discussions

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
6. Propose a compromise

To what extent did you arrange your letter to follow this organizational pattern? To what extent does it deviate from this organizational pattern? How do you plan to fix the pattern of arrangement in your letter?

 

ENG 106 Grand Canyon Week 7 Discussion 2

In the lecture, we discussed how the Rogerian style of argument requires a conciliatory style. How does Rebekah Taylor show Jim that she means no harm and that she does not wish to pursue a heated debate? How well does your own letter follow Rebekah Taylor’s example? What did you do well? How could you improve? Provide some examples.

During the week, respond to your classmates’ posts and comment on their use of a conciliatory style.