Informed Citizen Outline for Download
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Florida State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
08
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by masontorrance9
Stage 1: Determine the need for critical self-protection by asking:
1.
Is a major claim on beliefs/attitudes/values or actions being made?
a.
Yes, the rhetors make major claims on beliefs. They give the audience their
opinions on the issues with the NCAA and solutions to the issues throughout
their statement.
2.
Is the person merely relaying information or is he/she/they strategically presenting the
material?
a.
The rhetor is strategically presenting the material through examples and
statistical evidence.
Stage 2: Identify the claims that are being made:
1.
College athletics is in crisis.
2.
College athletics should prioritize education, college athletes are not employees.
3.
There should be congressional oversight to regulate systems like the NIL to prevent
abuse from colleges and the NCAA should have free reign to act as it sees fit.
4.
If we don’t address the current crisis in college athletics, it could hurt women’s athletics
in-turn.
Stage 3: Test the quality of the case for the claims:
Substage 1: Does the rhetor provide evidence and reasoning for every claim?
1.
Yes, authoritative evidence in paragraph 2. The rhetor shows substantial authority as
well.
2.
Yes, statistical evidence paragraph 9. A degree is enough compensation for college
athletes, they are not employees. “Economists estimate a college degree is typically
worth about 1 million in enhanced earning power in a lifetime” (para 9)
3.
Yes, authoritative evidence paragraph 14.
“We must establish and enforce regulations
that allow legitimate transactions Congress “must act to resolve conflicting state
regulations” and “give the N.C.A.A. the ability to enact and enforce rules for fair
recruiting and compensation”.
4.
Yes, authoritative evidence in paragraph 11.
“While many female athletes have
benefited from N.I.L. deals, those who press for giving a higher percentage of revenue to
football and men’s basketball players should understand that such a decision could
endanger women’s athletics”.
Substage 2: Does the support material meet the tests of evidence?
1.
Evidence fails the TOE due to bias.
2.
Evidence passes the TOE because the source is in position to know the statistics given.
3.
Evidence fails the TOE due to bias.
4.
Evidence fails the TOE due to bias.
Substage 3: Is the reasoning consistent?
Yes, the rhetors give consistent evidence and reasonings throughout their statement. They are
consistent with their views on the issues of the NCAA, although some of their reasoning is bias.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Substage 4: Does the reasoning lead to the conclusion directly or could there be alternative
factors that invalidate the conclusion?
I believe that there are other possible factors that invalidate the conclusion given by the rhetors.
They give their own opinion of solutions, but there are certainly alternative solutions and
factors.
Substage 5: Are there counterarguments or facts that invalidate the conclusion?
Yes, there are counterarguments that invalidate the rhetor’s conclusion.
Consider whether on balance on a strong argument is made:
Strengths/Weaknesses
Strengths
1.
The statistical example passes the TOE. The rhetor is in position to know the statistics
given.
Weaknesses
1.
Claim 1 does not pass the TOE because it shows bias. The rhetor is showing authority
over Notre Dame alone, and no other universities in the NCAA.
2.
Claim 3 does not pass the TOE because it shows bias. The rhetor is focused on saving the
university money in the long run which only benefits their university.
3.
Claim 4 does not pass the TOE because it shows bias. There is no substantial evidence
that supports the rhetor’s claim of the NCAA not showing equal treatment to women.
4.
The overarching claim is seen as bias in this statement because of the position of the
rhetors.
Stage 4: Test the rhetoric for manipulation:
1.
Does the rhetoric attempt to prevent other voices from being heard?
Yes, I believe that the rhetor does attempt to prevent other voices being heard. They do
this by giving opiniated solutions that will mostly fix their university’s issues with the
NCAA.
2.
Does the rhetoric attempt to overwhelm our reason?
I do not believe that the rhetor attempted to overwhelm our reason. They gave us the
issues they saw that needed to be solved and gave us their solutions to the issues.
Although the rhetor was bias at some points throughout the statement they did not try
to overwhelm our reason.
3.
Does the rhetoric attack groups or individual people, rather than their ideas or actions?
The rhetoric attacked a group in their statement. They were concerned with some issues
in the NCAA and wanted to speak on the issue. They do not attack ideas although they
do speak on some actions they disagree with taken by the NCAA.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help