Understanding-Evidence-in-Academic-Discourse-1.pptx

presentation

1. Understanding Evidence in Academic Discourse: Facts, Claims, and Opinions

2. Types of Evidence: An Overview • Evidence forms the foundation of academic arguments • Three key types we'll explore: Self-evident truths Anecdotal evidence Arguments from authority • Critical evaluation skills are essential for academic success • Understanding these distinctions strengthens analytical thinking

3. Self-Evidence: Strengths and Limitations • Definition: Statements accepted as true without additional proof • Characteristics: Based on logical necessity Culturally influenced Universal acceptance • Example: "All humans need oxygen to survive" • Warning: What seems self-evident may still require proof • Cultural context matters in determining self-evidence

4. Anecdotal Evidence in Academic Context • Personal experiences and observations • Limitations: Selection bias Limited generalizability Not statistically significant • Common in everyday discourse • Academic use requires caution • Best used to supplement stronger evidence types • Example: Individual health outcomes cannot prove general health trends

5. Anecdotal Evidence in Academic Context • Personal experiences and observations • Limitations: Selection bias Limited generalizability Not statistically significant • Common in everyday discourse • Academic use requires caution • Best used to supplement stronger evidence types • Example: Individual health outcomes cannot prove general health trends

6. Understanding Propaganda Techniques in Modern Political Discourse

7. Understanding Propaganda Techniques in Modern Political Discourse In the realm of political communication and informational texts, propaganda techniques play a significant role in shaping public opinion. This examination focuses on four distinct propaganda techniques: name calling versus card stacking, and ad nauseum propaganda versus appeal to justice. Understanding these techniques enhances our ability to critically analyze political messages and maintain informed perspectives.

8. Name Calling vs. Card Stacking Name calling is a propaganda technique that associates negative labels or derogatory terms with individuals, ideas, or groups to discredit them without addressing substantive issues. For instance, in political discourse, opponents might be labeled as "radical," "extremist," or "incompetent" to diminish their credibility. This technique appeals to emotions rather than reason and attempts to create negative associations without providing evidence.

9. Name Calling vs. Card Stacking Card stacking, in contrast, involves the selective presentation of facts and information to support a particular position while deliberately omitting contradictory evidence. This technique is more sophisticated than name calling as it uses actual facts, but presents them in a biased manner. For example, a politician might highlight positive economic indicators during their term while ignoring negative ones, or a media outlet might emphasize certain aspects of a policy while downplaying its drawbacks.

10. Ad Nauseum Propaganda vs. Appeal to Justice Ad nauseum propaganda relies on the constant repetition of ideas, phrases, or slogans until they become accepted as truth, regardless of their validity. This technique capitalizes on the psychological principle that familiarity often breeds acceptance. A contemporary example would be the repeated use of campaign slogans or talking points across multiple media platforms until they become part of common discourse, whether or not they're substantiated by facts.

11. Ad Nauseum Propaganda vs. Appeal to Justice Appeal to justice, alternatively, is a propaganda technique that leverages people's innate sense of fairness and moral righteousness. This approach frames arguments in terms of ethical considerations and social justice, often emphasizing equality, rights, and moral obligations. While potentially more constructive than other propaganda techniques, it can still be manipulated to serve particular interests. For instance, both conservative and liberal politicians might frame their healthcare policies as matters of justice, but approach the issue from different moral perspectives.

12. Title and Content Layout with Chart

13. Two Content Layout with Table First bullet point here Second bullet point here Third bullet point here Class Group A Group B Class 1 82 95 Class 2 76 88 Class 3 84 90

14. Two Content Layout with SmartArt First bullet point here Second bullet point here Third bullet point here

15. Add a Slide Title - 1

16. Add a Slide Title - 2

17. Add a Slide Title - 3

18. Add a Slide Title - 4

19. Add a Slide Title - 5